HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:11:37 GMT

In article <BvG760.LxA@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: In article <BvEF0y.4Cr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: >
>: >The Social and Economic Union section commits governments to certain basic
>: >ACHIEVABLE social goals. Health care is one, housing, food, etc are others.
>: 
>: No it doesn't.  That's the whole point of non-justiciable.  If the gov't
>: decided to remove health care, and someone took them to court under the
>: SEU section, the court would simply say "Case dismissed."  That is what
>: not justiciable means.
>
>I'm afraid you misunderstand what it is saying. The fact that it is
>non-justiciable means that you cannot mount a court-challenge AGAINST
>medicare. Government is committed by this section to providing a universal,
>portable, etc,etc health care system. It is thus entrenched in the
>constitution, and cannot be changed by the courts. The government cannot
>remove things from the constitution without an ammendment.

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".

As to suing against medicare, you cannot do that now, nor could you if
the section was not there.  The only reason the SEU section is there
is to get people to vote yes because it looks good.  It commits the
gov't to nothing!
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 03:05:11 GMT

In article <BvMBA4.6vx@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: In article <gill.718052796@physics.ubc.ca> gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill) writes:
>: {stuff removed}
>: >
>: >     Actually, what I would like to see from the No sides is not a simple
>: >rejection (any fool can do that), but a concensus on what minor changes
>: >would change their vote.  If they feel that the premiers are purely playing
>: >politics rather than writing a `good' constitution, this seems to be the
>: >approach they should take.
>: >
>: >     Fix it, don't burn it!
>: 
>: A number of the supporters of Yes have made this arguement. It is a
>: particularly strange one. The Yes side defined the question. They
>: decided on the either Yes or No framework.
>
>However, his point is still valid. I believe it is the right of anyone
>who puts forward a question to know why you say NO. Since, presumably,
>there is nothing wrong with the Charlottetown Accord that changing
>would not fix (even if the changes left no word the same), having the
>NO people say what they do not like would leave us with a workable
>document.

It's just too bad that the question that they've asked is "Do you
consider the Charlottetown agreement acceptable?" rather than (the
potentially more useful questions) "What do you like about the
agreement?  What would you like to change about it?"

I'm sorry, but I think that this is a case of "Ask a stupid question,
get a stupid answer."  If they had wanted people to give REAL answers,
they would have asked for them.  

Since they didn't ask for constructive criticism, how can anybody
complain if a "no"-sayer doesn't offer any?

And even if some useful constructive criticism came out of the
process, how would it actually get assembled into a modified
agreement?

-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:48:58 GMT

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. 

Don't forget that as citizens we provide directive for the government. They
are not "the enemy" to be feared. They are people just like us. We have
delegated them power, and we can remove it.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:02:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.021937.23983@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>Nonsense.  99% of the postings on this newgroups are -- and always have
>been -- biased emotional rantings.  If I've said things which have

No.  99% of YOUR postings are and always have been biased emotional rantings.

I have heard many intelligent things from both sides of the debate.  I
have heard nothing intelligent from you.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 14:04:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.233304.4638@cs.sfu.ca>, jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
|> In article <BvCF8D.nB@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep29.011430.1586@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
|> >>     Because the electorate in BC is BRAINLESS.
|> >
|> >Well that's certainly a well-founded argument, isn't it.  Tell me, does
|> >this work for all arguments you get into; anyone who disagrees with you
|> >is brainless?
|> 
|>      Well, as a matter of fact it usually does work, for the
|> obvious reason.  (:-) for the humour-impaired)  But if you had
|> read any further, you would have seen the reasons I gave.
|> The BC electorate seems to think that Mike Harcourt gave away
|> the farm, whereas he gave away nothing that the other provinces
|> didn't give away except a delay in a few years before Commons

Quebec didn't give away what the other provinces did but, even if
everyone gave away the farm, doesn't that mean the electorate that
doesn't accept the deal shows more acumen and guts than other electorates
that accept being screwed by the politicians?

|> re-apportionment.  Said electorate also seems to think that
|> Charlottetown *means* gender-equal Senate, or that voting no on
|> Charlottetown is the only way to avoid a gender-equal Senate,
|> whereas what Harcourt is talking about is a *BC government law*
|> about Senate gender equality, which can be overturned by any
|> subsequent BC government, including whatever government said

Of course, once enacted, what subsequent government would have the guts
to do such a thing?  Better to snuff the law before its made - avoids
the headache of doing it later.

|> electorate decides to install the next time they get tired of
|> *sensible* government.
|> 
|>      But what do you expect of an electorate which allows itself
|> to be led by Bill Bennett, Bill Vander Zalm, Rita Johnston, Rafe
|> Mair and the like.

As opposed to Mulroney or Bob Rae or Mackenzie King or Diefenbaker or
Duplessis or Trudeau or ...

|> 
|> --Jamie.
|>   jamie@cs.sfu.ca
|> "Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"

Bullets kill and considering your disparagement of the BC electorate as brain-dead,
this sig is certainly appropriate to your position.

--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Xref: sparky can.politics:7538 can.general:4667 soc.culture.canada:7016
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The economic effects of the "referendum"
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:40:13 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>Would you like to see Canada become the mexico of north america?

Umm. I think that Mexico is 'the mexico (sic) of north america(sic)'.
I though only dumb Americans made this mistake ;^)
Ohh! I see you're from Western. That explains it ;^) ;^)
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: French and English electronic versions of Report on Constitution
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 01:28:29 GMT

From the federal government I obtained the original Word Perfect 5.1
files for both the french and english versions, and I successfully
converted them to MS Word 5.0 on the Macintosh and subsequently
generated the plain text version which I just posted. The French
version prints just fine on postscript printers and looks fine on the
Mac's screen, except the plain text version does not use the ISO ASCII
character set for the accented characters, but rather the Macintosh's
own version of the special characters.

If anyone wants to help me solve this problem and also post the French
version, please email me. I do know that the DEC VT series of terminals
have had the international character set available for a long time,
although not all news feeds are eight bits, so things may not go very
far on Usenet.

If someone wants to volunteer as an anon-ftp site for all of the above
files, please POST your machine name publicly here and then I'll
arrange with you to transfer everything over to your machine. I'll
discourage individual requests right now since my employer may get
concerned (or maybe even become rather disturbed) at the resultant
large network bandwidth.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:36:38 GMT

dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>  1. Even if the senate isn't that useful at least it is elected.

By this definition of elected, the senate is then currently elected, the
constituency being all the prime ministers of Canada.

>  2. Quebec is hardly getting more power from a Distinct Society clause
>     when right now they totally ignore the constitution.

Quebec does not ignore the constitution. They (and others) have passed laws
using a section of the constitution that was created for just that purpose.

>  3. Who can say that native self government is bad, especially when it is
>     limited by the Charter and a "no new land claim" promise.

What "no new land claim" promise? Anyway, there are plenty of existing land
claims to settle. One of the things I like about the accord is the
instruction to interpret treaties in the spirit intended, rather than by the
strict wording.

>  4. Ok, Quebec having 25% HoC seats cast in stone isn't great, but I'm sure
>     if they ever drop much past 25% everyone will scream for a new accord anyway.

They can scream all they want but they can't change it without Quebec's
consent.

>My predictions, the results of a YES vote :
>
>  1. Some economic stability - finally.

The instability of the past few years has been global. Canada's economy will
remain unstable at least until the global economy settles down.

>  2. The lawyers argue for a couple of years about legal text and the federal/
>     provincial governments keep negotiating - SO?
>  3. This will no longer be the big issue, though it will always be an issue,
>     and we can now deal with other important issues (economy)?

It will become a big issue as Canada changes. The big flaw with this deal is
that it tries to keep Canada in 1992 forever.

>  4. Quebec signs the CHARTER - I get to be a real citizen when I'm in Quebec!!!!

You are now.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:55:29 GMT

In article <BvCs85.5K2@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: It is a good question to ask whether national health insurance would
>: have ever come about under the Charlottetown Accord...the answer
>: is probably NO.
>
>The answer is, of course, yes. 
>
>B.4 Canada's Social and Economic Union
>
>-- providing throughout Canada a health care system that is comprehensive, 
>   universal, portable, publicly administered, and accessible;

Except for one minor point.  The whole SEU section is not justisable!
(Which of course begs the obvious question, why is it in there?  I mean,
why not put other things in there too, sinces its not justicable - eg,
it would be real nice if everyone had a great income, and anyone could
go to university for free, and we only had to work for a few hours each
week ....)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:27:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.044415.12078@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.181003.7632@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>...ultimately it comes down to the simple fact that liberty,
>>tolerance, and democracy are not compatible with tribalism.
>
>  You've been about 0 for 10 on correctness in the last few postings, but
>this one is unfortunately such a common mistake that I couldn't let it go.
>
>  You don't need to be 'all the same' and 'forgo all trappings of cultural
>or other difference' to participate in a tolerant, democratic and free
>society. To think differently is to condone the Napoleans, the Hitlers
>the Stalins and such more familiar entities as the Catholic Church, who
>afterall only persecuted and eliminated those who resisted throwing off 
>their 'tribal' pasts.
>

Those advocating individual liberty are those who advocate diversity...
those who advocate tribalism are those who require the notions of
"separate but equal" or other such apartheid-like ideas.

>  The problem is always the one dominant group (or person) that decides 
>it will impose its particular brand of tribalism on the rest 'for their 
>own good'.
>

Individual liberty is in no sense tribalism...

>  To continue to impose the federally mandated version of tribalism on 
>the rest of us is what you continually advocate. The question is not whether
>there will be tribalism or competing comunities and views, but always
>whether there will be one dominant or a competing diversity of such. And
>without the competing diversity, and its balance, the system soon stagnates
>and fails.
>
>  To reject diversity is an ecological deadend ...
>

The concept of individual rights, of tolerance, and of democracy
embraces diversity...it is tribal philosophies that don't.

A society that embraces individual rights, liberty, tolerance, and
democracy, does not preclude and in fact upholds the right of tribal
association, if some individuals so choose to associate.  Diversity is 
the inevitable result of individual liberty.  The converse however is not
true.  Tribal philosophies, the notion of collective rights, run
into huge problems with diversity the moment one individual dissents.

>  The one thing this accord does well is recognize the diversity of 
>Canada and Canadians, and in shifting the balance back to a healthier
>Federal system. 

The Accord does not recognize diversity, but the need for apartheid-like
structures and ideas.

Gerald
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Keywords: referendum alternative proposal
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:58:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton) writes:

>While you clearly seem to disagree on the balance of this particular 
>implementation, I notice you do NOT explicitly reject the concept of a 
>regional veto and its objective.  

I can imagine an effective Senate playing this role.  Provincial
governments have enough power of persuasion (NEP notwithstanding).

>>Surely you jest.
>No.  Why do you say that?

For Parliament to gain a jurisdiction, the federal government would have
to call a national referendum.  It would have to win in every province,
facing opposition by the self-serving provincial governments.  The chances
of success would be slim.

>[Symmetry] is simpler.  Is it what we want?  NO!

Yes.  Simplicity is best.

Quebecers allegedly want powers transferred to their provincial government.
If so, they should convince other provinces to demand the same.  If they
can convince 7/50, they will succeed.  Otherwise, not.

>Why should the choice 
>of the people of one province prevent the others from having a common 
>policy in a given jurisdiction?  

Question: Why should one province's preference for independence in a
jurisdiction prevent the others from having a common policy? Answers:
First, at least one province is not participating, so the benefits of
the common policy are reduced.  Second, the method of selecting a
minister and voting on legislation in that jurisdiction becomes
complicated.  Third, the House majority relevant to that jurisdiction
is different from the majority that forms the government.  The minister
for that jurisdiction might not be from the governing party.  He would
not be a confidante of the Prime Minister and would be ideologically
opposed to the rest of the cabinet.  Therefore, he would be a lame duck.
If he did have influence, he would probably be working at cross-purposes
to government policy.

>Is it really a great deal of complexity?  NO! It is quite simple.  My 
>elected representative in Ottawa votes and only votes on the laws that 
>apply where I live.  Period.

The federal government would no longer be controlled by a single party,
and so would no longer be effective.

>Regardless of the causes of alienation in the West and in Quebec, the 
>constitution can provide a remedy for this problem and it should.
>In Quebec, once it is recognized that the PEOPLE have the power to 
>decide on what is the division of powers, they will be happy and 
>secure.

Perhaps.  Thank you for coming up with a constructive suggestion.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:40:45 GMT
Organization: McGill University

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.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Xref: sparky can.politics:7535 soc.culture.canada:7014
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>... the governments should have seen their role as a mediator,
>especially in the economic/trade field.

I'll agree.  I think the reason that most businesses are supporting
a YES because stability means good business ... from a "Two Fisted
Management" perspective (it's a local comic that runs in the NY Press
weekly free paper), I can see Mr. Bossman screaming, "It's all a load
of bulls**t ... now get back to work!"

From watching CNBC's Financial News Network (or whatever they call it
now) before heading to work, that's how the markets are calling it not
just here in New York but overseas, too ... geez, and I'm even old
enough to remember the *last* time that the dollar went below 80 cents
U.S.!!!

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in Quebec
Date: 23 Sep 92 13:06:45 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2494

From article <SBO.92Sep20213905@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>, by sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher):
> 
>>>>>> On 20 Sep 92 18:40:55 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:
> 
>   > Sorry, voting "yes" is more like agreeing to buy a house before you
>   > have any idea what it is going to cost!
> 
> Je ne comprend pas pourquoi tu t'entetes a vouloir voter
> non. Apres tout, le Equality Party et Alliance Quebec se
> sont prononces en faveur de l'accord. :-)
> 

No, Robert Libman and others in the party have indicated that they in favour
of "yes". The Equality Party hasn't taken an official position yet.

The Constitution Committee is recommending "No!".

Both position will be presented to the General Assembly for debate on Sunday
27th sept.

(I'll be there as President of the Verdun Riding Association - I just took
office on Monday 21st :-) )

This division is apparent across many party boundaries.

This is healthy.

It is better for partys to take official positions, after much debate, and
leave things of such importance to a free vote - without party discipline
for failure to follow party lines.

I expect the party will take an official "No!" position.

Whether or not they will keep begging Parizeau for funds for campaign
expenses remains to be seen. Though that may be a separate matter of
principle.

As for Alliance Quebec, they are officially endorsing the "Yes" side but
they are not speaking for all their members. (These divisions are apparent
everywhere - as I already said, this is healthy). The speach by Bob Keaton
and the press release listed several _SERIOUS_ reservations with regard to
the Charlottetown accord. Not least of which was the fact that the
education issue (specifically the non application of the s.23(1)(a)
"mother tongue" criteria for access to minority language schooling) was
not settled.

>   > (I borrowed that from something I read this week)
> 
> Jean Chretiens peut-etre? M. Chretiens a dit qu'il achetait
> quand meme :-). Pas mal pour un futur premier ministre du
> Canada :-) Comme quoi on n'est pas sortie du bois...
> 

:-) )

I think it was a representative of one of the aboriginal women's groups.

A bientot, mon ami.


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:7719 soc.culture.canada:7093