HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi)
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:59:05 GMT

bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:

>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>: In article <1992Oct6.130526.991@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>: >
>: >The issue of whether the document creates a hierarchy of classes, as Trudeau 
>: >claims, was generally refuted. 
>: 
>: It most certainly was not...they had four people whose views spanned the
>: range from seeing the Canada Clause as harmless, to Michael Bliss, who 
>: essentially agrees with Trudeau.  Whether it was refuted depends on
>: who you agree with...the concensus, if any, is that we really cannot
>: know how the Courts will use the clause...the Canada Clause may be
>: harmless, BUT IT MAY NOT BE as well.  

>Two of the four didn't seem bothered, Bliss backed Trudeau's arguments,
>and the last didn't voice a strong opinion. This tells me that Trudeau's
>interpretation isn't as black and white as some people would like to believe.  

>Truism: depending on your mind set, you can interpret any constitution any 
>way you want.  

>Therefore, the legal text is what we need to see before we can nit pick..

Why not just let everyone watch the programme for themselves and let us
make the decisions.  As far as I was concerned, nearly all sides of the 
debate were represented.  I commend the Journal for this programme as I 
found it very incitful and yes... beyond rhetoric.  Everyone had valid 
points, everyone just has to decide which they agree with.


|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 
|   David Joseph Regeczi          |  I'm a few bricks short of a load, but   | 
|   Simon Fraser University       |  a full load always hurt my back; I flew | 
|   Vancouver, BC, Canada         |  over the cuckoo's nest and I'm never .  |  
|   dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca        |  ever coming back - Bare Naked Ladies    | 
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.231936.4726@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>     I'd like to see Preston Manning (noted No campaigner) and
>Jacques Parizeau (noted No campaigner) sit down and negotiate
>what they want to do with Canada, particularly in the area of
>French language rights.
>
>     After Manning and Parizeau smilingly decide to split up
>the country, I'd like to see them sit down again and negotiate
>exactly how they're going to split up land, resources,
>responsibility for social programs, transfer payments, and so
>on.  I'd like to see them do this without racial slurs or
>threats of military action.
>
>     I'd also like to see Judy Rebick (noted No campaigner) and
>Rafe Mair (noted BC No campaigner) sit down and decide exactly
>how much the Constitution should promote the equality of the
>sexes.
>
>     We live in a pluralistic democracy, wherein people have
>opinions all over the political spectrum.  The Constitution has
>to be a compromise among all interested parties; it's inevitable
>that people on one side or another of some of the major issues
>of our time will not like it.  The only thing those people have
>in common is that the Constitution is not formed in the image of
>their opinions.
>
>     C'mon Preston and Jacques, Judy and Rafe.  Sit down and
>give it a try, and just see if you can all sign your names to
>anything better.
>

This is a fraudulent argument...ordinary Canadians for the NO
vote would believe that it would be just as illegitimate for
Preston, Jacques, Judy, and Rafe, to make a deal as it is
for Lyin' Bryan, Joe, Mikey (I can't add) Harcourt, Robert,
and Bob.  The alternative is an elected constitutional convention
to propose constitutional options and text only...leaving
the ratification to the people and legislatures.

Gerald

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 17:02:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.145111.29409@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>Trudeau has 1 vote and no tanks...and people want to take away his
>right of free expression.

Let's not exaggerate what the guy said. He said he thought Trudeay
should shut up (I disagree...I think he should have spoken up much earlier).
Surely the guy has the right to express that he thinks Trudeau should shut up?
No?


Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:20:35 GMT

Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: 
: >  2. Kiss off the #1 rated country by the U.N..  
: >     Right now Canada is the best place
: >     in the world to live, according to the U.N..  Would we be better as four 
: >     weaker countries?  I doubt it.
: 
: Actually, even if Quebec separated, Canada would remain as the #7 economy
: in the world.  The environment would be the same.  Cities would all still
: look as good as they did before.  The Rockies would still be standing.  On
: the whole, I think Canada would be just as good as before separation.
: 

I don't think this is correct. Quebec has 27% of the population, but more
than 27% of our industry and mineral resources. This is where the majority of
our GNP comes from. 

How would the environment be the same? An independent Quebec, scrambling for
economic stability, would likely sacrifice environmental concerns for
immediate economic gain. (Like every other developing country in the history
of mankind -- don't forget the beaver and our forests). Don't for a minute
think that environmental damage would be confined to Quebec either -- we
breathe the same air, and drink the same water.

Also, to shore up our falling economy, what choice would the rest of us have
but to cut more lumber in BC, pump more oil in Alberta, more mining in
Saskatchewan, more industry in Ontario, etc, etc, etc.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:09:46 GMT

In article <W01-my_@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:

>And while it is _technically_ feasible, it is not _politically_ feasible.
>Quebec wouldn't even agree to an elected Senate that was eviscerated by the
>Charlottown Accord.  When Alberta tried to force the issue with Waters'
>election, Mulrooney only agreed to appoint him after Alberta agreed not to
>do it again.  Clearly _someone_ was upset that the current Senate might
>get to be largely elected---someone with some pull.  If Cha'town goes down,
>that someone will be in the same position they were in before, and so no
>more likely to support (even partial) election than before.
>
>It is misleading to say that the Feds could "easily" make the Senate an
>elected body.

Yes it is easy - all it would take is for the PM to have enough political
will to say, I will appoint senators who names by the province - they may
name them by any means they wish.  Then the people could easily pressure
their local premier - it wouldn't come all at once, Quebec would probably
continue to appoint, while Alberta would be the first to start elections.
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Equality Party & Ref. position
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:49:18 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1112

From article <1992Sep25.234519.16471@spxtech.qc.ca>, by steven@spxtech.qc.ca
 I (Steve Potter) predicted:-

> There is a General Assembly meeting of the Equality Party on Sunday 27th.
> 
> The Party's position wrt Charlottetown "deal" will be decided.
> 
> My prediction:-
> 
> "NO!" - officially - for a number of important reasons.
> 
> Efforts will be made to obtain campaign funding from Uncle Jacques.
> 
> Members will be advised to search their own souls and conscience 
> before voting.
> 

4 resolutions were passed.

My prediction was bang on.


I haven't typed the text of the resolutions for relaying yet. There are
a number of "whereas"s that might be of interest for this group's
discussion.

Any one who wants to see the text e-mail me for it. If there is
sufficient interest I will post it.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:38:09 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1341

From article <1992Sep26.024623.10613@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, by golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy):
> In article <1992Sep26.005939.11276@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>Parizeau would have to run on a platform of independence, or promise
>>>a sovereignty referendum...either of which is still a threat if the
>>>Charlottetown Accord passes
>>
>>He could not declare independence after a "Yes" vote -- he would not have
>>a clear mandate.  If Quebec were to vote "yes", the constitution would
>>be closed for a long time.
>>
> 
> Why...Quebec has not signed away its right to self-determination in
> the Charlottetown Accord...and it is very likely a Quebecois-pure-laine
> majority will have opposed the Accord since a "yes" vote will not
> have reached 60%...a small simple majority may approve the Accord
> on Oct 26, but that only sows discord, not peace.
> 

Quebec doesn't have a right to declare independence!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:02:11 GMT

In article <BvGBE2.4LI@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>You're not committed to collective rights at all? You don't think that we

Now you're beginning to get it.

>should do something to equalise rights of, say, children? women? natives?

"equalize rights"?  Now isn't that exactly what individual rights is all 
about.  Everyone has the same rights.  Collective rights is about unequal
rights - you have more rights if you are a child, women, native ....

>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.

1)  There rights are equal to ours.  All rights are equal when you have
    only individual rights.  It is only with collective rights that you
    have unequal rights.  Try putting up a sign in your mother tongue in
    Quebec - if you're French, you can; if not well sorry, you can't.

2)  That misleading statistic is still flying around.  70% of men's pay.
    Well, there are several things you should know:

a)  When someone decides to become a secretary (and the profession is 
    dominated by women) they know (or should) that the pay is lousy.
    I feel no obligation to someone to up their pay just because they
    selected a poorly paying job for a career.  

b)  There was a study done in the US that showed that women quit their
    jobs 6 times as often as men.  When that is taken into account, women
    actually earn slightly more than men.

c)  We're not the US, I can hear you say.  Indeed; a study in Canada 
    indicated that women who stay with their career actually earn 95%
    of what men earn.  Women who stay at home with their kids, and later
    (maybe) go back to work, earn 62% of what men earn.  The effect skews
    the results to give an average of 67%.

Now, stop quoting meaningless stats without thinking about what is behind
them - lifestyles that people have chosen.  And let's let the market decide
what people should earn, not the gov't.

(BTW, if you really wish to deal with the pay problem, then become a
guidance counsellor in a school, and encourage women to go into better
jobs, and encourage men to go into nursing and secretarial school.)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:23:20 GMT

robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
: 
: My problem here is the idea that all provinces should have equal representation.
: [...] 
: I believe in proportional representation and I oppose the party system.
: 
: Thus, in a federal parliament, it makes no sense to have power equal for all 10
: provinces (the present seat allocation reflects population to a large degree,
: although it should obviously be updated.)
: 
: If you are advocating the abolition of federal powers, then we need not bother
: talking about one state any more with jurisdiction over the whole country. And
: we should be talking about the constitutions in each of these new fiefdom states
: perhaps?

Having a purely proportional representative government in a large, regionally
diverse country such as Canada,  will likely result in the eventual
secession of regions, due to political alienation.  Cases in point: Quebec and
the west.  You therefore either need some sort of regional criteria in any 
federal system, such as a EEE senate, OR you need to devolve contentious
areas of power to the provinces.  Otherwise, given the status quo, regions
are going to continue to become politically alienated.  In other words,
proportional democracies don't always work in practice.

: But let's be fair. If we believe in democracy, then we are stuck with the 
: ideal of majority rule and majorities ruling minorities.

This only holds until a substantial subset of the minority, which lives in some
geographic region, decides they don't like being ruled by the distant majority,
and then secede.  Intra-imperialism breaks countries apart.

: This brings in the prime importance of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which
: prevents the majority from negating the basic individual rights
: we all possess _as defined by the Charter_.
: 
: THIS is why it is so important to make sure that the Charter is NOT
: compromised (with distinctness, hereditary rights to self-determination
: ONLY for aboriginals  -- rights defined by "race", veto-"rights" which
: are entirely contrary to principles of majority rule, etc etc). 

I agree: the Charter certainly should not be overriden by collective rights.

: And therefore I will be voting (vehemently) NO.  
: Voting IN this proposal will be the destruction of the country, not
: the contrary.

Both the Yes and No sides are screaming the same thing -- death and destruction
if the other side wins.  I think that both sides might be right.  
I'm also sick of all this jingoism.

-- 
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: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:01:42 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: In article <1992Oct4.204122.19088@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >
: >But characteristic 1, that "Canada is a democracy committed [...] to the
: >rule of law". Aboriginal peoples are Canadians. Their right to self-government
: >is to be interpreted with Canada's democratic principles in consideration.
: >The Canada Clause characteristics hold for the interpretation of the entire
: >document.
: >
: 
: Aboriginal governments are not going to be required to be democratic.
: Section 1 about the proposed (2.3).

Yes they are... characteristics of Canada!

: 
: A great many aboriginals feel Mercredi has negotiated AWAY their
: inherent rights...
: 
: ...if aboriginals really believe that they have an inherent right,
: than Mercredi HAS diminished their rights, since he should have
: gone for a simple non-derogation clause...that Charlottetown would
: not derogate from any rights or Treaty Rights aboriginal Canadians
: may have.
: 
: By enshrining the inherent right, Mercredi has automatically limited
: it...and this is why aboriginal problems are going to be worse rather
: than better after Charlottetown.

Most aboriginal groups I've been hearing in the media seem overjoyed
by the accord.  The treaties and reserve system are a weak substitute for
self-government.  But hey, let THEM decide what they want.


: >: 
: >: The philosophical intent of the Accord is chaotic....the can with a 
: >: straight face use the phrase "individual and collective rights" when
: >: philosophically that is an either/or propostion.  
: >
: >Please explain why you believe this is the case.
: >
: 
: It is like saying, "A and not A are fundamental charisteristics of
: Canada"...              

That is a pretty literal interpretation.  Most constitutions proclaim 
concepts which could be antagonistic, but are not interpreted that way.
It *is* possible to have individual and collective rights that don't
infringe on one another, if they are interpreted with a measure of 
intelligence.  

-- 
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
Xref: sparky can.politics:7605 soc.culture.canada:7053
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:22:53 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

If you really want to keep Canada not too far from what it is now,
I see one solution : presenting a solution that most people will
accept (not about 50% and we are lucky if we get 51%) and present it
realistically as a platform for next negotiations.  And stop foolish others.

If I were you and really want that, I would present Asymetrical federalism
as a good solution.  The current agreement is a matter of replacing
commas with periods, no more.  It is a fake of solution.
I would present the same thing to Quebec as Souverainete-Association
and to CHQ as Asymetrical federalism.

In the same time, I would promote end of senate (it is useless anyway),
end of monarchy (most canadian have no attach with British queen anyway)
and other symbolic changes or Canada into a Republic.

This will give us the following:
Quebec will be happy of that compromise : enough self-control for no more
feeling domination (whenever there is or not NOW domination, many actions
happen because of that feeling).  S-A was first proposed by PQ and give
enough powers.

West will be happy of that compromise : in most points, Quebec will have
no power at the federal level (because it will be sovereign on that)
and only Ontario will weight so that Central Canada will have much less
power.
Ontario will be happy because Quebec market remains as is.
Maritime will be happy because Quebec will not be a barreer across Canada.
Natives will be, well this solution is neither positive or negative for them.

Mulroney will not be happy, not Bourassa because they made fool of them.
Chretien and Trudeau ditto.

The _canadian_based_ party promoting this will be very happy as it would
probably form the next government (hey, NDP, it's time to move :-)  ).

And please don't fool us in saying Asymetrical federalism is too complex.
Mulroney is fooling us by saying the text of agreement will not be
available because we can't understand it.  A-F may be complex, but it
can work.  Until now, NO OTHER SOLUTION has been found.

P.S.  And this is from some nationalist that has been called an extremist
by another nationalist in that group.  So, Quebec can take it.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu secret      Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca (Ross W. Wetmore)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Keywords: referendum alternative proposal
Organization: University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:25:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.183008.26654@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.025424.12879@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton) writes:
>>
>>October 26th, 1992: To those who think there is no Plan B. 
>>______________________________________________________________________ 
>> 
>>PROPOSAL:
>>Every province has:
>>  An unconditional opt-out clause without compensation,
>>  A conditional opt-out clause with full compensation.
>>
>>  To obtain full compensation when opting out of a federal program, a 
>>  provincial legislature has to set up a substitute program with the 
>>  same goals.  (NOTE: this is writing in the constitution what is 
>>  current practice between Ottawa and Quebec City)
>
>Canada would last about 15 minutes under this proposal...for
>one...BC and Alberta would opt out of everything and keep their
>tax dollars at home and form their own country.   

  Have BC and Alberta set up their own police force like Ontario and
Quebec? Or are they still going with the national police force (RCMP).

>The rest of the country is not going to financially support
>what amounts to an independent Quebec, so when you propose
>an extreme asymmetrical model of federation or sovereignty,
>don't build in transfers from the "have" provinces...
>
>Equalization is dead with significant asymmetry or independence.
>Gerald

  To broad a generalization, with supporting facts tending to fall the
other way ... why are you so afraid of letting provinces and other
communities think for themselves, or not HAVE to march in lock step
with the federal bureaucracy?

Ross

Newsgroups: can.politics