HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:28:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.164914.27631@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, coghlan@bnr.ca (Patrick Coghlan) writes:
|> 1. I want don't want to look back 10 years from now, knowing I 
|>    voted yes in a last-ditch attempt to stop Quebec from
|>    separating, for a deal that very few people understand,
|>    when they will probably leave anyway.  I want to force 
|>    their hand and find out where they stand now, not 10 
|>    years from now. Besides, people should be voting YES
|>    because they like the deal, not just to keep Quebec in
|>    Canada.

I will vote YES because I like the deal.  Do you want to know why?  Well I'll
tell you anyway.  Because it does virtually nothing to change anyones life
and settles an annoying problem.  These changes are minimal : 

   1. Before we had a useless appointed senate, now we have a useless elected
      senate, 
   2. Ontario and Quebec have always had all the political power in Canada, 
      now they have a little bit more,
   3. Almost no powers were exchanged that didn't already exist,
   4. The Natives are actually getting something out of it, and since it
      does not violate the charter it doesn't bug me.

Yes, the 25% HoC guarranty in seats for Quebec bugs me, but if they ever fall
too far below that we'll just renegotiate anyway (can you see the RoC threatening
to hold a vote on kicking Quebec out?).

|> 2. The agreement does nothing to curb the government's
|>    appetite for spending and taxation, nor does it attempt
|>    to force the government to run a balanced budget.

I agree with these concepts, and will vote for a party that promotes them,
but I do not feel that they have any right to be in the Constitution.  They
are part of a parties platform, not part of the fundamental rights of a
countries citizens.

|> 
|> 3. Multiculturalism should not be handled by the Federal government
|>    and does not belong in the constitution, especially when it
|>    means it has to be funded by tax dollars.
|> 

Again, another party policy.  The Constitution (to the best of my knowledge,
but I have not read every word) does not say "You must spend XXX on multiculturalism"
anywhere.

Don
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a K-car (a nice reliant automobile),
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a fur coat
  (but not a real fur coat, that's cruel),
If I had a million dollars, we wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner
  (but we would eat Kraft Dinner), of course we would, we'd just eat more. - BNL
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Collective rights in the new constitution
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:35:09 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

Collective rights:  rights pertaining to collections of individuals, including:
1) Member's rights:  rights that individuals can claim IF they belong to a group
2) Group's rights:  rights of a group proper.

The constitutional agreement creates new collective rights.

Member's rights
---------------

Certain Canadians will have a right to an as-yet-undefined form
of tribal self-government and freedom from "white" government
because of their aboriginal ancestry.  The same people will also
be eligible for special Senate seats.

Quebecers and Prince Edward Island voters will have a right to better
representation in the House of Commons than other Canadians.

Certain voters will have a right to better representation in the
Senate than other voters' because they live in provinces with small
populations.

Certain Senators will have voting rights that others do not have by
virtue of having claimed to be francophones.

Certain women or men will become Senators in spite of not having been
elected, because of their gender.

Only Quebec judges will be eligible for three Supreme Court positions.
Only non-Quebec judges will be eligible for the other six positions.

Group's rights
--------------
The Distinctsociety is recognized, and must be preserved and promoted.

Linguisticminorities are to be revitalized or tantalized or whatever.

The existences of
EnglishspeakingcanadiansconcentratedoutsideQuebecbutalsopresentinQuebec and
FrenchspeakingcanadiansconcentratedinQuebecbutalsopresentoutsideQuebec plus
that of Firstcanadians are recognized as Fundamentalcharacteristics within
a Multiculturframearbeit.


I must concur with Don McPherson, who has come closest in his column in the
Gazette to capturing the phenomenal absurdity of these negotiations:
"Somebody please stop them!"


--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:17:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.194939.17756@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>You say there is no reason why voters in small provinces should have more say
>in federal matters than large provinces. Of course they do, if federal 
>policies try to force the will of Ontarion on BC, or PEI for that matter.
>
>Your point about equal votes is meaningful at a provincial/municipal level.

Now, what's the difference between federal and provincial/municipal.
Surely, we are discussing the basic principles of democracy?  And
those wouldn't vary depending on how you label the government being
elected, would they?

I'm from Northern Ontario, and let me tell you, people there often
feel they are being dominated by the people from Southern Ontario.
So, how can we protect the interests of Northern Ontario?  Hey, let's
allocate 3 of Ontario's senators to Northern Ontario!  (And 1.5 of
those have to be women!)  (And here in Eastern Ontario, we often
feel dominated by Toronto...)

How about BC?  I'm sure the people outside Vancouver/Victoria sometimes
feel they don't get their share of power - how do you propose to handle
that?  Or are you from Vancouver/Victoria, and don't care?

If this accord is flawed (and it is) it is because too many people care
about their own special interests, and not about the much larger
interests we all share.  Of course, all of us must look out for our own
interests - but let's be careful not to get tunnel vision!

(BTW, I still don't understand why breaking the rep-by-pop principle
is OK when it benefits BC or PEI, and wrong when it benefits Quebec.)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:08:02 GMT

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:

B
>You're off in Alice-in-Wonderland if you think we can cork the 
>independent Quebec movement by rejecting the current accord. If we reject 
>the accord, Quebec will say, "Aha! They really DON'T want us! 
>Independence here we come!" And there won't be a thing Bou-Bou can do 
>about it. Hell, if we vote no, he'll probably lead the movement to 
>secession if he can get in front of the P.Q.

>If we could have cut Mulroney "off at the pass" - i.e. before Meech, we 
>might well have been able to ignore our constitutional problems for 
>thirty or forty years. But we didn't. The genie of Quebec nationalism is 
>out of the bottle, and you're dreaming if you think you can vote No and 
>still put the cork back on.

>I agree, BTW with most of the criticisms I have read here of the accord. 
>I, too want to see a real EEE senate, and I want things in black and 
>white - not vague promises for future negotiation (aboriginal 
>self-government). 

>I am, however, ready to hold my nose and vote yes. The accord is 
>certainly NOT what I wanted, but on balance, is marginally better than 
>what we had, and a LOT better than seeing Canada break up.

All I have to say is that voting 'yes' will also not stop the idea of 
separtism in Quebec.  Agreed, it may help the federalist cause for the moment
to vote yes but what happens in the future?  The separtists should be taken
(IMHO) on head on to get the question over with (didn't they do that in 1980?).

If the separtists win the argument in Quebec that this vote is _only_ on the
deal, then I can see reason to just vote on the actual content of the deal 
rather than some far-off nationalist feelings.


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

>The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
>put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
>- Agnes McPhail


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
|   David Joseph Regeczi              |  If crime fighters fight crime...    | 
|   Simon Fraser University           |  and fire fighters fight fires...    | 
|   Vancouver, BC, TROC               |  then what do freedom fighters fight?|  
|   dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca            |  G.Carland                           | 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Xref: sparky can.politics:6744 soc.culture.canada:6526
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 05:43:59 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

I have read the text of the Charlettetown Accord,   and this certainly no Meech
lake, Meech lake which would have been our version of apartheid.

What I have in fact read is the Globe & Mail version of the text from 1 Sept
1992.   This accord recognize within Canada that:

1) All provinces are equal.

2) French and English are the official languages of the country and deserve
   protection righ accros the board.

3) Quebec's Distinct Society is now subject to the Charter, and not the other
   way around.

4) The Multicultural aspect of Canada is recognized and to be protected.

5) The Senate is Equal, eventually 100% elected and give time would become very
   effective.

6) I have heared the rep. by pop arguments acc the constitution, however since
   1st-past-the-post is how we elect the HoC, it doesn't matter.  What would
really matter would be if the HoC was based on proportional representation.  As
it is now, it is based on party discipline.

7) The aborginals are basically citizens of Canada just like the rest of us,
wiht there Treaty right entrenched.

Let's discuss content, not propaganda.  I am voting yes due to content, not due
to rhetoric.

thank You.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Treaty of Maastricht, synonymous with the Key to Armageddon.
From: riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 7 Sep 92 09:14:49 GMT
            <SBO.92Sep3210335@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>


((((Je ne suis pas ce fil sur can.politics mais j'ai lu un message 
    qui disait que ce n'est pas la peine pour les anglophones (francophones)
    d'etre genes d'afficher des messages en francais (anglais) qui ne sont 
    pas syntaxiquement parfaits. Je suis d'accord. Ceci dit, je ne peux
    m'empecher de souligner une "orthographe d'actualite".  ))))

>couch potatoe

Follow-up on usa.politics.  :-)


Marc Riese
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Suisse

P.S. 
Je trouve tout le fil de discussion "Denied access..."   ***NUL***.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: The Override ("Notwithstanding") Clause
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:19:57 GMT

In article <SBO.92Sep14130838@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>Oh! Mais vous ne mentionnez pas que des que la clause
>nonobstant est utilisee, une avalanche d'insulte se produit.
>
>Je ne crois donc pas que la clause non-obstant soit un
>mecanisme qui pourra etre utiliser sans provoquer des
>remous.
>
>Voyez-vous, la clause non-obstant est moyen de dernier
>recours.

I agree with this. Another important item to remember is that the clause
can be used to override only certain sections of the Charter, namely
section 2 and sections 7 through 15. Important rights like the right to
move anywhere within Canada are not subject to override.

Mathew Englander.
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:19:33 GMT
	    <1992Sep4.051612.25428@ee.ubc.ca>
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!


jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes :

>I have no idea. I think the provinces should agree on what a federal government
>should do (how about international relations, defence, interprovincial trade,
>standards on safety, measures etc). Then everything else should default to
>provincial control. We don't *need* federal and provincial forestry branches
>or tourism ministries. One level of government should step aside.

That is the way Switzerland functions.  To the federal level, 7 or
maybe 8 levels of power (Defence, Post & Telecom, International
Relations, etc.); to the cantons : education, income (the cantons
make the transfers to the federal, not the other way around like here),
and other goodies.  The way things work in Canada, there exists too
much duplication of tasks. Some may argue that it creates, or keeps, jobs.
But in the mid and long term, it proves very counter-productive.

>Do we really need TWO sets of buffoons in Canada? For me, the provincial
>govts. in canada are enough to laugh at: Bob Ray, VanderHarcourt etc.
>the federal circus is just too much of a good thing...

Don't forget the clown we have here in Quebec.  As for the federal
circus beeing too much of a good thing, I can't believe it would
be better with Cretin and what's her name again? Ah, yes, "Make me laugh".

Time for a real Rhinoceros to step in!



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

"Vous avez une araignee au plafond?"
- Non. Plutot une toile d'araignee entre les jambes.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi)
Subject: Yes side=$140 million : No side=$0.00 Fair?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:02:31 GMT

I have a bone to pick here.  The government of Canada is should be trying to
educate Canadians about the constiutional deal.  Yet, the yes side is receiving
all of the time and publicity.  Rather than giving out informative information
on the package, we "the people" must suffer through the intolerable propaganda
of saving the country.  If the governments of this country are so proud of what
they have done, then why not let the deal stand on its own?  Does the government
feel that they have to save us from ourselves?  Does it have to be our money 
they are throwing away?

The government of B.C. has been offered a package of eight pages (free of      
charge) dealing with some of the more negative aspects of the deal.  It will
be interesting to see if the government will include it with the "yes side
package" that will be sent to every person in B.C. to "inform" us of the deal.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
|   David Joseph Regeczi              |  If crime fighters fight crime...    | 
|   Simon Fraser University           |  and fire fighters fight fires...    | 
|   Vancouver, BC, Canada             |  then what do freedom fighters fight?|  
|   dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca            |  G.Carland                           |

As a side note ... I feel that ballet people are severly underrepresented in
the government and this prompted me to write ballet rather than ballot in a
prior posting.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:43:35 GMT
Organization: Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Canada

In article <dregeczi.716249282@sfu.ca> dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi) writes:
>
>All I have to say is that voting 'yes' will also not stop the idea of 
>separtism in Quebec.  Agreed, it may help the federalist cause for the moment
>to vote yes but what happens in the future?  The separtists should be taken
>(IMHO) on head on to get the question over with (didn't they do that in 1980?).
>

How many votes were needed to make the Canada what it is now?  A lot.
There were years of negociations before the 1865 agreement.  Even PEI
(confederation resulted of a Charlottetown conference) voted against in 1865
but joined later.  So, don't take a vote as definitive.  Moreover, one day
Quebec will secede.  And the same debate will always come back each 10 years.
Just give a charismatic leader to PQ and you will see what may happen (PQ
is about at the same level of vote intents than PLQ, but Parizeau is less popular
than his party).

>If the separtists win the argument in Quebec that this vote is _only_ on the
>deal, then I can see reason to just vote on the actual content of the deal 
>rather than some far-off nationalist feelings.

The deal is so poor that the YES camp will present it for what it is not.
It goes no significant new powers to Quebec.  It does not give an EEE senate.
It does not give any power to Natives.  But, the YES camp will pretend all 
that.

>
>|   David Joseph Regeczi              |  If crime fighters fight crime...    | 
>|   dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca            |  G.Carland                           | 

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:00:16 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:

>[...] the problems with Canada's federal system cannot be simply
>solved by providing stronger voices to the "outer" provinces.
>Geographic isolation and population differences is only one of the
>sources of provincial tensions.  Canada also has a multinational rift
>that must be addressed.  If the Senate is the House for the
>geographically and numerically disadvantaged provinces, and the
>Commons for the majority, where is the House where English- and
>French- speaking Canada battle it out?  Where is the forum where the
>First Nations and the Europeans deal as equals?  The double majority
>proposal for legislation affecting cultural institutions is but one
>place where the English/French duality is addressed, and the promise
>of self-determination for First Nation groups is where the
>Aboriginal/European duality is recognized, but are they sufficient?

>The type of Canadian setup favoured by the nationalists in Bourassa's
>PLQ, envisions Quebec as an equal to (English-) Canada, in certain
>spheres at least, the way Denmark is an equal to France within the
>European Community.  They envision a Canada/Quebec Parliament where
>these shared powers would be exercised, and separate Canadian and
>Quebec Parliaments for everything else.

>This type of "assymetrical federalism" (really more of a
>"constitutional association") is an extreme, as far as federations (or
>confederations) go, but it would address many of the problems
>Quebecers have with the current setup.

This can of worms is fully open now.  Individuals are no longer equal:
they have different rights according to the province they live in,
according to their race, according to their maternal language, and
in some provinces, according to their sex.  We can't create governments
fast enough to "enfranchise" all these "equal" groups.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 14:35:30 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <1992Sep7.054312.5938@thinkage.on.ca> dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:

>25% for Quebec:
>Civilization has been fighting for centuries to win the ideals of liberal
>democracy, but here in Canada we're thinking of throwing them away.
>If a constitution isn't a place for principles and ideals, what is?
>This kills the deal for me.

Ditto here - a resounding NO on acceptance. The rest of the package seems
immaterial in light of scrapping rep by pop.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Canadian Union! (was Re: European Union)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:42:39 GMT

In article <Bqs-xq=@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) asks:
>
>>Anyone have the population distribution for these countries?
>
>The following is from the 1987 Canadian World Almanac, estimates for 1985:
>
>  Country     Seats   Population
>  -------     -----   ----------
>> Germany:      24      61M (west only)
>> Italy:        24      57M
>> UK:           24      56M
>> France:       24      55M
>> Spain:        21      39M
>> Netherlands:  12      14M
>> Belgium:      12      10M
>> Grece:        12      10M
>> Portugal:     12      10M
>> Irland:        9       4M
>> Denmark:       9       5M
>> Luxembourg:    6        400k
>
>("Seats" here refers to the number of seats each country has on the Economic
>and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions in the European Union.)


These committees are pretty minor, it's not fair to compare them to the
senate as you do.

The most important council and another major council give equal representation
to each state. (Ie the European Council and The Council of Ministers)

A number of Quebecers and Ontarians seem confused about equal representation,
as the west is demanding.

It should be easiest for Quebec to understand: Quebec wants state/nation
like status more than any province, so Quebec should be able to accept
something like the European Community, only modified for Canada.


To follow the EC would satisfy Quebec's autonomy demands, an equal
role the west demands, and the hand-outs the maritimes demand.
Minority groups would get better protection: natives, francophones outside
Quebec, English inside Quebec.

If we did follow some of the EC, then the Senate would become the major
government, and would mimic the European Council and European Council
of Ministers. The Parliament would be given a similare minor role
it deserves, and would mimic the European Parliament.

Granted, Canada is a lot more integrated politically (although I bet the
EC is better integrated economically in some ways!) 

I don't see a problem with this kind of autonomy. It lets Canadian diversity
survive, but it would give a banner we can rally around (Canada) (while
not making anything un-patriotic about provincial nationalism).
(Best of all it would keep the Yanks  out!!)

Could this be a basis for a new Canada that will *last*?




-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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.
________________________________________|_________________________________