HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:53:34 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
 <93022.0220182893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <C1B22B.7qA@mach1.wlu.ca>

In article <C1B22B.7qA@mach1.wlu.ca>, dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
says:
>
>In article <93022.0220182893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>In article <C11uK0.B8n@mach1.wlu.ca>, dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
>>says:
>>>>
>
>>>Perhaps Bob Rae knows how to get Mulroney re-elected - he has taken to
>>>accusing Mulroney for all his problems which is simply untrue. While I may
>>
>>Well, Mulroney cutting transfer payments to Ontario is largely the cause
>>for the increased deficit in Ontario. So Rae does have reason to complain
>
>I am familiar with federal transfer payments having written my doctoral
>dissertation on federal transfers. I don't think the federal government had
>any choice and I think that should be clear to anybody with a head on their
>shoulders.

Instead of degree dropping (ie "I know what I'm talking about so I can make
statements without substantiating them") could you please explain why you
don't think the federal government had any choice?

>>
>>>not want to see the present PM remain in office, I would prefer that to
>>>seeing Bob Rae retaining influence so I am going to vote against Bob Rae
>>>even if it means voting for his opponents. Who knows maybe the PM will carry
>>
>
>I am not a Mulroney supporter (even though I used those words that I would
>prefer him to Rae. I find myself here being a realist. Rae can't blame the
>federal government when he is responsible for his own deficit. The federal
>government would have done this even had the Liberals or the NDP been in
>power.

How is Rae responsible for the cut in transfer payments?

>
>>So do you blame Bob Rae for all our problems? Sounds like it!
>>
>>Again, read up on the federal cut in transfer payments, effectively
>>transferring part of Ottawa's deficit to Ontario.
>
>Yes, and who is responsible for the federal debt? The federal Liberals were
>the ones who got it up in a few years from zero to $38 billion and the
>Conservatives have not been doing enough to control it - sounds like you
>want them to continue it at many billlions more than it is currently - our
>dollar would be in trouble, our interest rates would be with Swedens at over
>300% per annum and we would be the laughing stock of the world for
>mismanagement. I say the federal government took the only route it had and
>Bob RAe is being less than honest to blame somebody else when it is only him
>who can fix it.

Less than honest? Again, how is Rae to blame for the cut in federal transfer
payments? Do you deny this has a direct impact on the provincial deficit?
You only say the feds had no choice, you don't explain how Bob Rae is
responsible for the cut or how the cut isn't the cause of the deficit increase.
IE, you're playing a shell game. PhD or not.
>

>>>
>
>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Followup-To: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:37:01 GMT

John Stewart (jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca) wrote:
>In <C1Epw1.IAH@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>> 
>>The formula for equalization is based on the tax collections of 29 revenue
>>sources (see my textbook for the 29 taxes) and measures it against the
>>potential revenues if the base was average to determine what the payment
>>will be - Ontario does not qualify.

>Whatever statistics you can pull out of a hat to show that Ontario is
>still a rich province don't change the reality that my wife and I 
>see when we look at our family budget.  Inspite of an above average
>income there is nothing left after we pay our taxes, the mortgage, and
>other basic expenses (food, clothing, heat, lighting).  We are just 
>praying that the car lasts another three years at which point the children
>will be in school and my wife can get a job.  Our situation is by
>no means unique, many families in Ontario have had their budgets 
>stretched to the breaking point by tax increases -- primarily Federal
>tax increases.  It's a myth that Ontario is still rich enough
>to subsidize the poorer provinces.

The problem of higher taxes decreasing (or seeming to) real disposable
income is not unique to Ontario.

>I think the problem is that your fancy equilization formula doesn't
>take into account the higher expenses of living in Ontario.  We 
>would need a lot less money to attain the same livestyle in one of
>the porrer provinces.

I believe that Vancouver area home prices are comparable to, or greater
than, TO area home prices. Ditto for other expenses (heating excepted). Yet
BC is still a "have" province as well. [An interesting aside which does
somewhat support John's complaint is that the home ownership rate in
Newfoundland is about 80% and is, I believe, the highest in the country]

One thing, however, that I could never understand is how Quebec is a
"have-not" province. It seems quite well off compared to the Atlantic
provinces and even Sask & Manitoba. Could Doug possibly address this?
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Apology deserved! (Was: Tolerance in Quebec...)
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 08:58:41 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits


> From article <1993Jan21.135834.10029@cerberus.ulaval.ca>,
> by beaucham@astro.phy.ulaval.ca Dominique Beauchamp suggests:-
> 
> > In fact, Steve, with his paroles full of hatred, is going to give a
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > completely false image of Quebec to the rest of the World...
> 


Are you sure the problem isn't that Steve is giving an ACCURATE picture 
of the future Quebec? Nothing in Steve's postings has led me to believe 
he harbours any ill-will to the french speaking people of Quebec or 
anywhere else. Antipathy to certain bone-headed policies, yes.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

     "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.  Capital is only
the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not
first existed.  Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much
the higher consideration."  - Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:33:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.170424.10785@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.080838.17629@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>that's fine and dandy. So the union provides a service, and members pay
>>a fee. All nice and capitalist, EXCEPT you are forced to join the union;
>>if you don't you get sacked. 'Democracy you say' So what. Democracy
>>is not an excuse to impose your views on others, even if we do agree
>>to that, in a constrained way, with GOVERNMENTS. See, unions are not a
>>government, and they have no right to CONSCRIPT people, just because 51%
>>of the workers think it is OK to do so. If I work for someone else, that
>>is a contract between me and the employer. If I choose to let a union
>>negotiate on my behalf, fine, but don't force me, and tell me it's
>>for my own good.
>
>You are presently forced to be represented by your MP, whether you
>want to be thusly represented or not. Your other options: representing
>yourself, having another person represent those of your ilk from that
>same geographical area, are options you are presently not allowed to
>exercise.

I don't much like that either. But there is fundamental difference between a 
union and a government. Work is a contract between private parties. A union
has no right to intercede on by supposed behalf.

>
>-- 
>    Michael MY Hui    Ottawa Ontario Canada    ~{~}


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and Political Parties
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:30:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.125743.22068@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <murphy.727951759@well.sf.ca.us> murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy) writes:
>>
>>I'm curious is Canada's five major political parties have any 
>>significant differences of opinion on gay and lesbian civil rights
>>and all that?
>
>The strangest thing in Canada is that it is the Liberal Party
>which has the most vocal minority opposed to abortion.

If I put the words "Catholic" and "Immigrants" together, would that
explain some of the strangeness?

There's a STRONG tendancy for immigrants of various sorts to vote
Liberal, largely because it was under the Liberals that many came to
Canada.  Consider in particular the Italian community as an example.
They tend to be rather Catholic, and the Pope kind of frowns on
abortion, if I remember correctly?

In addition, the Liberal Party has fairly strong roots in Quebec,
which was very strongly Catholic.

Does this explain the strangeness?

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: Ethnic origin of Canadians (was Re: Misleading stats)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:05:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.100357.18418@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <20JAN93.10616941.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, by CZ94000 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>:
>> In article <1993Jan19.213722.19738@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>>From article <C1484H.7o2@ecf.toronto.edu>, by pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN):
>>>> In article <1993Jan19.063014.8618@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not exactly, but I have some numbers that should be close enough, from
>>>>>>the 1993 Canadian Global Almanac.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of Canadian residents, 40% are of British, 27% French, and 20% other
>>>>>>European ethnic origin.  (No date is given for this statistic; I would
>>>>>>suspect it comes from the 1986 census.)  Depending on who is doing the
>>>
>>>40% of Canadian residents are of British origin !????
>>>
>>>My first reaction was "Rubbish!"
>>>
>>>My second reaction was "Cod's Wallop!" (Or is it 'Wallap'?)
>>
>> Why?  Are you suggesting the real figure is far higher or far lower?
>> Either way, what is the basis for your assertion?
>
>Gut reactions.
>
>Annunciated disbelief.
>
>Can someone supply figures on percentage of population of British
>origin by province?
>
>Could someone also provide the definition of "British Origin" used
>by the source to be quoted?
>
Here are figures from the 1986 census.  In that census, 20 % of
households received a "long form".  One of the questions asked
on that form was (roughly) "What is your ethnic origin?"  Multiple
responses were allowed.  The following  are the percentages who
gave a "British" response to this question, either as a single
response or part of a multiple response.

BTW, British includes Irish, as well as English, Scottish, Welsh,
and "Other British", whatever that is (Manx?).  Irish nationalists,
flame StatsCan, not me.

Nfld   95.3 %
PEI    86.5
NS     83.4
NB     62.3
Que     9.9
Ont    62.0
Man    47.8
Sask   51.9
Alta   58.0
BC     63.0
Yukon  61.7
NWT    32.0
-----------
Canada 48.8


Numbers from the 1991 census will presumably be slightly lower,
given recent immigration patterns.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 11:34:27 GMT

In article <93020.174629SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.174121.4480@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim
>Robinson) says:
>
>
>>Just out of curiousity, do you support doing away with the secret ballot
>>that was used for union certification purposes? This was one of Harcourt's
>
>Automatic certification exists in Ontario. It seems to me a waste
>of money to run a vote when almost 50% of the possible voters have
>already committed themselves to vote for one side.
>
>However, you should ask someone else; I will not likely get asked
>to participate in a union drive any time soon. And of all the things
>I worry about, "intimidation" by a union comes very low on the list.
>
I am part of a Union which was certified three years ago in Ontario. It was
interesting because our University has four faculties and while one faculty
voted 100% in favour, another voted only 10% in favour. Is it fair that the
one faculty which had 100% in favour should dominate the one which only had
10% in favour? At the time Ontario needed more than 50% support and the line
was very close to the actual vote and thus secret ballot I think was
important. I suspect from events since that there is a small group of Union
members who perceive that they speak for the faculty when in fact they are
not at all representative of the overall faculty. I also suspect this is
true of Chamber of Commerce executives. However, I worry more about the
Chambers of Commerce because they provide the capital to provide the jobs
and they can move that capital between jurisdcitions very very quickly
leaving the rest of the people without jobs and without any chance of moving
quickly. Capital can move with a flick of a computer switch - people cannot.
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: Labrador boundary (was Re: S.N.A.G.G.)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:16:36 GMT

In article <21JAN93.11063926.0102@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:

>>Ever since Mackenzie King manipulated Labrador in the Newfie's favor and
>>they foolishly voted for Confederation.....

>Does this come from the same John LaRocque history text which has
>World War 2 being started by the assassination of a Yugoslavian
>politician in 1917?  

Was the World War 2 thing a typo? It probably was or I was really
wasted when you read that history text. But if you really
want a debate on WWI (oh, what a misnomer - England, France and
Germany as the "world") and WWII, here is something to get you
started. 

Here goes: were it not for the treaty of Versailles,
the Germans would never have needed to invent Adolph Hitler.

And I might add, thanks to Canada's insistence - Borden signed
Canada as a power all its own alongside France and UK at Versailles.
(heck, after all of our "glorious war dead", why shouldn't we?).

So, following the above paragraph, Canada deserves some of the
guilt in imposing in Germany a document which bankrupted the
economy with outrageous "war settlements" and loss of territory
and necessitated the rise of a leader who would put an end
to the treaty and repatriated former German land. (Note, this
is NOT an apology for Hitler, just a claim that the man would
never have taken power in the abscence of a bad war treaty).

>Are you seriously suggesting that Nfld opted
>for Confederation in 1949 because they had won the Labrador
>boundary dispute 22 years earlier?  Care to provide details?

As for the statement on Labrador - I am not making a connection
(22 years is a long time) but it is worth thinking about in discussing
just why they voted for confederation. I may dig up this article from
a Nfld history teacher which provides some details on the Labrador
dispute. He says the King admin tipped the scales in the Newfie's
favour - I can't wait for the Quebec nationalists on the net to 
pick up on that one - "Newfie says Labrador belongs to Quebec".

Let's ask the Newfies the question that Uncle Ron asked Americans 
12 years ago "Are you better off today then you were 50 years ago?".

>Tom Box
>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA







-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
From: paulf@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Clintonmania vs. Trudeaumania (was MTV BALL 10,000 Maniacs)
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:43:22 GMT

murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy) writes:
>> $23 million inauguration
>None of which is public money, it should be pointed out, so it says
>nothing about Clinton's attitude about *government* spending.

...almost all of which was PAC money, it should be pointed out, so it says
something about Clinton's attitude about *conflicts of interest*...

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and Political Parties
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:57:43 GMT

In article <murphy.727951759@well.sf.ca.us> murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy) writes:
>
>I'm curious is Canada's five major political parties have any 
>significant differences of opinion on gay and lesbian civil rights
>and all that?

The Supreme Court in Canada is slowing leading on the issue...the
Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party both have a
vocal minority opposed, which probably mirrors the state of the
Canadian public.  The Liberals and the NDP are more unambiguously
supportive.

The Progressive Conservative or Tory Party in Canada is really
most like moderate Republicans, and many Tories would even not
feel that uncomfortable in the Democratic Party.  Bill Clinton
could easily be a Tory in Canada...a slightly Red Tory, as
they are called in Canada, but most Tories are Red Tories.

There basically is a huge overlap in Canada between the "left"
wing of the Tory party and the "right" wing of the Liberal Party.

The strangest thing in Canada is that it is the Liberal Party
which has the most vocal minority opposed to abortion.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and Political Parties
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:36:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.143012.21781@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.125743.22068@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>There's a STRONG tendancy for immigrants of various sorts to vote
>Liberal, largely because it was under the Liberals that many came to
>Canada.  Consider in particular the Italian community as an example.
>They tend to be rather Catholic, and the Pope kind of frowns on
>abortion, if I remember correctly?
>
>In addition, the Liberal Party has fairly strong roots in Quebec,
>which was very strongly Catholic.
>
>Does this explain the strangeness?
>
>-- 
>Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
>University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
>Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.

When my maternal grandparents came to Canada from Lithuania in the
'20's, the Liberal party gave out little "gifts" such as pencils and
calenders at church and community gatherings. Not being familiar with a
democratic process, they became loyal to the Liberals on the basis that
they really cared and both my grandparents, after becoming citizens,
voted Liberal in both federal and provincial elections until their
deaths.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF])
Subject: Re: Comparisons based on skin colour/ethnicity or Male/Female
Keywords: Discrimination, Statistics, Study, Race
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:22:42 GMT

In article <T7NyXB1w165w@gtm-inc.com> chrise@gtm-inc.com (Chris Ecclestone) writes:
>My question is this :  If statistics are to be 
>kept, why are they not kept for all possible dividing (or uniting) 
>criteria?

Mostly because there is probably no significant correlation of such
things to anything (other than to race), and because even if there were
a correlation to something else, most people wouldn't care anyway.

We can normally tell with a quick glance from a distance what your
approximate race and sex are, and that is useful for our natural
desire to stereotype.  If I have to get close enough to see your
eyes or ask your shoe size, I'd be dealing with you as an individual
and then it would be more difficult to use my prejudices.

Traditionally, race and sex had a strong correlation to one's culture
and position in life.  Knowing such things about someone could quickly
provide a lot of information about that person, and in nearly all
cases the information would be correct.  This could be very useful,
and in those very few cases where it was incorrect, the person
involved would be a very unusual individual and quite used to
being mistaken for something else.

In modern times, in cosmopolitan areas, these stereotypes are in
general no longer accurate enough to be useful.
Unfortunately that does not stop people from using them.


>What are people trying to prove with all these racist (sexist) 
>statistics?

People try to prove whatever they want to prove with statistics,
and other people believe whatever they want to believe when they
hear them.  If you understand what statistics really are and don't
have a strong desire to believe the claims, then in most cases it
will be quite obvious that the proof is garbage.


To answer a different form of your question, "why ARE statistics
kept for race and sex?", there are two quite different reasons.
One, to prove that the stereotypes are correct, and the other
to prove that stereotyping is still being used when there is
no justification for it.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada