HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Date: 26 Sep 92 19:52:17 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Sep26.163051.42870@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
: >golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: >
: >
: >>So what if Premier Jacques Parizeau keeps nominating ultra-nationalists...
: >>or Premier Rae keeps nominating Canadian Catherine MacKinnon clones. [to the
: >Supreme Court of Canada].
: >
: >Presumably what would happen is that the bench would start to contain a 
: >breadth of opinion more in keeping with the Canadian population (which does
: >last time I checked contain some significant number of nationalists and
: >feminists).
: >
: >You would presumably prefer that the court was restricted to those of a
: >more right-wing political persuasion, thus ensuring that those of us who do
: >not share those views can be assured of a rather frosty welcome if we go
: >to court.  This is democracy?
: >
: 
: No...I would prefer the person nominating the Justices was responsible to
: all the people in Canada...Bob Rae and Jacques Parizeau can name whoever
: they want to the court when they become PM, and thus have political
: support from across the country.  (Again, I am fully in favor of 3
: justices being from Quebec...and only am opposed to the appointment
: procedure).
: 
: Not all women are Catherine MacKinnon clones...Justice (I'm not certain
: of her name...I think it is) Beverly McLaughlin from BC on the current
: court is my favorite justice.   

I'm glad to here that your favourite justice is ok, and the rest are not. I'm
certain that if all the justices were appointed by you, then you would
approve of the supreme court. The fact remains that the majority of Canadians
hold differing views. Allowing the premiers to present names allows the
people to (through their premier) show their preference. If the people of
Ontario feel that there are not enough women on the bench, then Bob Rae will
submit women's names. If they feel there are not enough visible minorities,
or left-handed people, or whatever, the premier will submit these names.

How does it matter if the names are submitted by the premier, or by cabinet?
Presumably if cabinet disapproves, none of the names can be selected. If the
PM feels that no justice on a list is suitable, I'm sure the PM will not
select one.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: The Accord and BC
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:44:01 GMT

In article <BvCsEq.5rt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>[Large plagiarised article deleted]
>
>: Comments and notes:
>: 
>: The concern BC will drift into a closer relationship with the US
>: (a Cascadian scenario) should the Charlottetown Accord
>: be approved should not be dismissed lightly...the Accord may not 
>: "save" Quebec and we may "lose" BC because of it.
>: 
>
>BC is very unlikely to join the US. Like all Canadians, the people of British
>Columbia are very attached to Health Care. Under US rule, they would be
>unable to have this.

Oh? tell that to Oregon. What a state does is largely its own business,
subject to some limitations.

I don't favour BC joining the USA. But BC, Washington and Oregon already
discuss issues affecting the west.
>
>--
>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: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:49:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.002207.12803@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.211112.16306@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>We are long past the old union war-stories of children exploited in coal
>>mines for 18 hours a day, and the goons beating anyone who spoke for worker's
>>rights.
>
>Didn't you watch/listen to Jesse Jackson's speech a few months back
>during the Democratic National Convention in New York City?

No, I think was watching Pat Buchannon instead...

NOT!!!!!!!

>
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:45:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.060446.26173@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

[ prov-union/pro-management vs pro-company ]
>
>For all of you who are employees and not employers, the above attitude
>is the only politically (office politics :-) acceptable one to take,
>because to be fervantly pro-union is the same as suicide in a white
>collar job environment, and to be fervantly pro-management will not
>endear you to your non-management peers. The best way is to be
>pro-company.  That's the Japanese way, by the way, and it will soon
>be the Canadian way across this magnificent Great White North of ours.

A lot of pro-union things go against the owner's "inherent" rights:
-to use their own property
-to spend money the way they feel is best
-who to hire etc.

Some unions try to get contracts that cover more than they should.
A contract to work should cover the job, how it is performed, working
conditions, dispute resolution, and of course wages.

But lots of contracts cover things like job security, contracting out etc.
People will disagree, but an employer can't forecast the future, and if
operations have to be scaled back after the contract is over, the
union has no business trying tell the employer it can't sack people.
It's also an employer's decision who does the work for him. Contracting
out should be a non-issue.

And with what I read about Ontario's labour laws, the individual worker
will have almost no say in arguing against union certification.
(the labour board won't have to hear presentaions from
worker's against a union. This was the essence of what I read recently.
All because the Union knows what's best). Unions are another example
of the conspiracy against an individual worker's rights. This
is as usual defended as "democracy" as if an individual's
rights end when a group says so. If a union is good, voluntary
association will be enough to keep people in the ranks.    


This isn't to say that Management is always right. The adversarial
process has to end.
>
>
>Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: allane@earth.gas.unsw.OZ.AU (Allan H. Evans)
Subject: Voting
Reply-To: allane@earth.gas.unsw.OZ.AU
Organization: School of Geography, UNSW.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:03:16 GMT

Does anyone know whether Canucks overseas can vote? Binding or not, it seems
to me to be an important issue.

Al

---
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Allan H. Evans * School of Geography * UNSW * PO Box 1 Kensington 2033 Aust.|
| allane@earth.gas.unsw.OZ.AU  Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Systems |

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:27:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.004936.16528@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>
>This will become an extremely sad scenario for the NDP in the next
>election. They'll get clobbered for not delivering what they promised
>(as you have shown above), have themselves called commie bastards all
>over again even though their policy was exactly opposite (they raised
>tuition fees), and have their right-wing policies conveniently ignored
>by most people since those very same policies would be pounded on via
>the first two methods.
>

The NDP found enough money to raise the total Ontario government
payroll 15% in their first 2 years, and they raised the traditional
level of spending from around 15% of GDP which was fairly constant
over 2 decades to 18 or 19% of GDP.  The union members in the
civil service were obviously more important than students.

>It's not pro-union or anti-business or whatever. These are polarized
>attitudes that are only applicable in a boxing ring, where the purpose
>of the game is to have one side win. Here, the intent is to help both
>sides get along better. When one side insists on "winning" at the expense
>of the other side, the outcome will be less productivity than if both
>sides cooperate towards the common good of the company.
>

When the Toronto Sun is the only newspaper left in town because the
Star is destroyed because it can't hire replacement workers in a
strike you might think differently.

>The NDP is "present", albeit not very strong, in Quebec. Quebec has
>never had an NDP government. Yet Quebec's labour laws are far stronger
>than Ontario's. Quite a few governments in Quebec have had a chance to
>change the laws. The present "profitable federalism" government headed
>by a premier with prestigious schooling in economics is certainly not
>left-wing by anyone's standards. Yet their labour laws remain stronger
>than Ontario's.
>

Quebec is a have not province, of whom around 10% of their provincial
budget is equalization payments, (half of that 10% comes from
taxpayers in BC, Alberta, and Ontario).  Luckily, Quebec has someone
to receive equalization payments from...will Ontario be so lucky
when it becomes a have not province under the NDP.

Gerald
From: de@cray.com (Duane Eitzen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:47:42 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <Bv7nw5.1Ht@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>Some more polling (Leger & Leger survey, 22-24 SEPT)
>Survey out of Quebec, Journal de Montreal. 26 SEP 92 
>
>Place        YES   NO   Not decided
>Maritimes    47.1  20.1  32.9
>Quebec (1)   23    43    34         /this is from another survey, for comparison
>Ontario      40.5  29.8  28.6
>West         38.1  35.6  26.3
>BC           28.7  58.6  12.7

Thanks for posting this.

An observation: The "Leger & Leger" seems to single out BC as
being opposed to the accord, but I think when you add it all up (and 
reintroduce the Quebec poll), it would seem the national result is very close,
with perhaps even a larger number opposed than in favor. Do any of the
pollsters bother to sum the results for the whole country (a bizarre way to
present the statistics, I acknowledge :-)

I remember during the Meech debates, the media would always put a pro-Meech
spin on everything. Is this happening again?

Duane.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7032 can.politics:7565 can.general:4672
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:07:31 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Sep29.231954.4525@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <BvBGDu.tH@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>>BTW, could someone please explain to me how collective rights is different
>>from apartheid.
>
>     Sure... as soon as you explain to me how the present Indian
>Act and reserve system is different from apartheid.

Oh, I get it.  If you have apartheid now, it's OK to enshrine it in
the constitution.  Well that certainly makes sense!
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6915 can.politics:7369
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:55:48 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

A moment ago, I, myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui), passionately wrote:
>It's not pro-union or anti-business or whatever. These are polarized
>attitudes that are only applicable in a boxing ring, where the purpose
>of the game is to have one side win. Here, the intent is to help both
>sides get along better. When one side insists on "winning" at the expense
>of the other side, the outcome will be less productivity than if both
>sides cooperate towards the common good of the company.

See Ed Finn's article "Time To Try The Third Way" on page B1 of
the Ottawa Citizen, Sunday, September 27th, for a more eloquent
and of course far more substantive presentation of my views above.

Ahhh. I feel better now.
The Ottawa Citizen has not lost its way after all.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: bglenden@colobus.cv.nrao.edu (Brian Glendenning)
Subject: Re: Extra billing, was Re: Nothing is free ... (Was: Ontario "socialism")
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
	<1992Oct1.003408.20011@news.columbia.edu>
	<1992Oct1.182146.18092@thinkage.on.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:55:48 GMT


When our first child was born (in early 84) the extra-billing amounted
to about $600. This was in Toronto.

Brian
--
       Brian Glendenning - National Radio Astronomy Observatory
bglenden@nrao.edu          Charlottesville Va.           (804) 296-0286
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7085 can.politics:7690 can.general:4697
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: How I'm Voting on Oct. 26
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:24:01 GMT

q1hl@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Nameless CS Student) writes:
> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
> >There is no "neither"...spoiling your ballot or abstaining is the
> >moral equivalent of a yes vote.
> >
> >They will only count "yes" and "no"...one might figure they might
> >mention the number of spoiled ballots, but those will be viewed
> >as a reluctant "yes"...but a "yes" nevertheless.
> 
> REALLY!?!?
> I understand the concept of complicity through silence, but I've
> never seen it applied to a democratic vote before.
> I always figured a spoiled vote was a non-vote.  How silly of me.

In a real election this would be the case.  I'm sure that in the
post-referendum propaganda war 'no' votes will be measured as a
precentage of 'total votes cast' {yes,no,spoiled} instead of 'valid
votes' {yes,no}.  But maybe I'm just being too cynical.

To anybody who is thinking of spoiling their ballot...

When my mother was a returning officer she said that you could usually
tell who had spoiled the ballot:  a protester ("None of the above") or
an idiot (those too stupid to follow the "Put an 'X' in the circle"
instructions).

There is, however, no distinction between a protest spoil and
an idiot spoil; so politicians just think of them all as morons.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:40:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.000055.27340@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>
>Remember, the federal government will still have the final say.
>I don't think provincial governments are any more likely to abuse
>their power of nominating judges than the federal government.
>

The people of 8 provinces and 2 territories have no say in elected
the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of Quebec, who will effectively
name 2/3rds of the Court.  I am not against some form of provincial
input into the process of selecting the Justices or the number of
Justices from Quebec or Ontario, only this particular appointment
process.

Gerald
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Status Quo
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:20:19 GMT
	<1992Sep25.193256.29114@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU


In article <1992Sep25.193256.29114@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

   In article <Bv55ur.D25@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
   >:   The "NO" campaign is in favor of a Canada which was ranked as the best
   >:   place in the world to live by the UN in its latest survey...the onus
   >:   is on the supporters of the abomination of Charlottetown to say why
   >:   the country they propose to replace Canada will be an improvement.
   >
   >The NO campaign cannot bring this Canada back by a NO vote. A NO vote ends up
   >with NO Canada. You can't have the status quo anymore. It is ignorance to
   >believe that. Canada will be torn apart if the deal fails. The time for

   They were saying this before Meech....they are saying this before
   Charlottetown.  A "Yes" vote doesn't make a Quebec referendum on
   sovereignty any less of a possibility than a "No" vote.  This
   is not a vote on sovereignty, or a vote which allows one to end
   the threat of Quebec sovereignty, it is a vote on a BAD DEAL.

Everytime Quebec's demands are rejected, it comes back asking for
MORE.  The Charlottetown Accord gives more to Quebec than what was
explicitly part of Meech.  The next round (there will be a Quebec
provincial election in 12-18 months) would see Quebec represented by
an Allaire-dominated PLQ or a separatist-minded PQ.

   The sky does not fall on October 27th with a NO vote...it may be
   a bit tumultuous between now and the New Year because of all the
   hysteria and propaganda coming from the YES side, about how they
   don't want to talk about the content of their Accord, but all a
   NO vote means is that we begin preparing for elections federally,
   in Quebec, and in Alberta...which means our economy should get
   one big Keynesian stimulus, because a lot of politicians have
   to get reelected.

A NO vote might just as easily see the dollar remain below 80c, or
drop even further.  The Bank of Canada would be forced to raise
interest rates to keep the bottom from falling out.  Higher interest
rates will make it harder to come out of the recession.

Note also that significant national business interests, such as the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Royal Bank of Canada, prefer the
economic outlook resulting from a YES vote.

--
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
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6931 can.politics:7385
From: smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:36:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: gramian.SMITH.92Sep28103654
	<1992Sep28.022500.15571@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> epritcha@s.psych.uiuc.edu (EVAN pritchard) writes:
> >
> >From the looks of this, BC people are really against this the
> >referendum.  Moreover, more of them have made up their minds about it.
> >Why is this?  
> 
> 
> Entrenched and significant underrepresentation in the House of Commons
> for perpetuity...that will be minor initially and worsen over time.
> 
> BC Premier Mike Harcourt can't add and is desparately in need of 
> remedial mathematics.

From what my wife's parents parents tell us, another amazing political
objective (quickly and loudly rejected by the B.C. electorate) was
Harcourt's endorsement of his Woman's Interest Minister's plan to
reserve one half of B.C.'s senate seats for woman and one half for
men.  Add Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison to Harcourt's remedial
reading list.

By the way, do all Canadian provinces have a Ministry of Woman's
Interests, or is this position restricted to those with socialist
governments?

Steven Smith
From: climan@byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Thanksgiving
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:25:29 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Originator: climan@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

I was wonderingabout the history of the Thanksgiving holiday as it is
celebrated in Canada.  Could someone please inform me of the background.

Thanks.
-- 
Dani Climan                          
climan@byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: Canada Clause
Organization: McGill University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:59:02 GMT

In article <Bv7MJD.16n@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>Having 3 Justices from Quebec is something quite acceptable because
>Quebec has not the same law system that CHQ.
>You need to have enough different opinions in any issue.
>
>But, having 3 Justices from Ontario is bad.  Ontario has the same law
>system as other provinces of CHQ.  So, 2 justices from Ontario (1/3 of CHQ
>roughly) and 4 from different provinces should be the rule.
>
Ontario is more than 1/3 of CHQ.  In fact, it's more than 1/3 of
Canada.  From the 1991 census: population of Ontario -- 10,084,885
population of rest-of-rest-of-Canada -- 10,316,011.  So 3 justices
from Ontario and 3 from the other 8 provinces and 2 territories
seems reasonable to me.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general