HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Challenge
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:50:38 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1155

From article <1992Sep28.194329.20446@pandora.matrox.com>, by thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood):
> 
> The agreement does not say that individual rights are not a
> fundamental characterisic of Canada.  It just fails to say they
> are.
> 
> No matter.  They are still guaranteed;  the Charter still applies,
> but differently.  It now takes into account rights of collectivities
> that some people care about.
> 

Many of the rights that are "guaranteed" by the Charter can be overridden
by the notwithstanding clause (s.33?), don't forget.

The mother tongue criteria for access to minority language education 
(s.23(1)(a)) is suspended in Quebec under para. 59.

The notwithstanding clause expires 5 years after it is invoked.

S.59 has no time limit!!!! >:-((((((((((((((((


(I know that's not what you're discussing but I had to drop that in)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Date: 25 Sep 92 18:13:37 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep25.144445.9380@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>   Section 21
>   ----------
>   By 1996:
>     - Ontario +18, Quebec +18, B.C. +7, Alberta +4 HOC seats and
>       all provinces will have >= 95% of the seats their pop warrants

As I recall, there's a clause which says that if a province achieves
full rep by pop, it retains that forever.  So the factor above
should be 95% for Nfld, NS, Ont, Alta, and BC, but 100% for PEI, NB,
Que, Man, and Sask.

>   Thereafter:
>     - Any province's seats >= "fixed floor"
>     - Quebec's seats >= 25% of total seats
>     - Any province's seats >= its Senate seats
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Are you sure about this one? (I don't have my copy of the accord
handy).  This would mean two more MPs for PEI.

>     - Any province's seats >= seats of another province with a smaller pop

This could come into effect if NS overtakes Sask.

>   "A permanent formula should be developed and Section 51
>   should be adjusted to accommodate demographic change, taking
>   into consideration the principles suggested by the Royal
>   Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing"

Anyone know what these principles are?

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:54:10 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: 
: A "No" win and a few more elections, and politicians will go behind
: those closed doors with a little more trepidation.  We should scare
: the hell out of them instead of allowing them to scare the hell out
: of us.

I sincerely doubt that there could ever be another accord which can 
satisfy all the malcontents.  The reactionary NO side will immediately
splinter into a dozen opposite forces if they win the referendum.

Besides, every voice involved in this referendum is using scare tactics.  
The YES side proclaim financial and national destruction if the NO side 
wins. The NO side say a variety of the following: the dissolution of 
individual rights (NAC) , a weak federal Canada (Trudeau), future threats 
from Quebec(Trudeau, Manning), a sell-out of Quebec (Pariseau), a sell-out of
BC (BC public opinion), the threatening of social programs (NAC, Carstairs), 
not enough aboriginal powers (some BC aboriginals, and the Mohawks(?) ),...

I think that, in the unlikely scenario of there being yet another round
of constitutional talks (gag!), the degree of diverse, opposing opinions as 
to what Canada should be as a country will make an accord impossible.
Possibly the only kind of constitution which makes any sense for Canada
is one that reflects this reality.  

-- 
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: coghlan@bnr.ca (Patrick Coghlan)
Subject: Re: What does Quebec take with them when they go, and who decides?
Reply-To: coghlan@bnr.ca (Patrick Coghlan)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:24:23 GMT

In article <BvCKx9.I8r@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
|> There are no rules. Separation is unprecedented. The Canadian court system
|> would be unable to decide. Probably what would happen would be that Quebec
|> would leave, keeping current borders intact, and leaving the federal
|> politicians to negotiate
|> 
|> 1) trade agreements
|> 2) border and customs
|> 3) defense
|> 4) territorial rights
|> 5) ownership of federal property within Quebec.

I believe existing borders are enforced only while Quebec remains in
Canada, according to constitutional lawyers.  Unless the rest
of Canada agrees to let them keep the territory, Quebec would have no
choice but to attempt to send troops in.

|> What I predict would happen would be:
|> 
|> 1) Quebec will deny responsibility for any of the deficit

You can be your first born that this will NEVER happen.  Every country
in the world that needs to borrow money to keep its economy going does
its best to pay its foreign debt.  Quebec will be no execption.  Third
world countries let their people starve so they can keep up foreign debt
payments.  Why?  Because governments can't run without money, democracies
anyway (Castro is another story, at least for now), and no new gov't
would be stupid enough to cast an image that they might not honour debts.

|> 2) All federal institutions in the province would be nationalised
|> 3) English Canada will not allow Quebec to use the Canadian Dollar

Quebec doesn't care.  They've already picked a new currency - the Frontenac.

|> 4) Trade will go down the toilet
|> 5) Atlantic provinces will be isolated.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:13:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.231936.4726@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
>     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.

So let's see Wilson and Rae negotiate economic union.  See, the examples
on the yes side are just as stupid.
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:56:05 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 678

From article <dregeczi.717382229@sfu.ca>, by dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi):
>
> ...
>
> From my understanding, Quebec must hold a referendum on sovereignty before
> the government can declare independence.  (Someone correct me if I am wrong).

There is no legal mechanism for a province to declare independence. It can
not be done without breaking the law!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
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 12:51:49 GMT

marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm) writes:
: In article <1992Sep21.182959.11524@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >
: >If Pierre hadn't started the whole Constitutional repatriation process in the 
: >first place, there'd have been no need for Meech. [...]
: 
: So now you are blaming the man for having the vision to repatriate the
: constitution in the first place.  In an earlier posting, you blamed him
: for damaging the process.  Make up your mind!

This is Poli-Speak if I've ever read it.  I'm blaming the man's gigantic
ego for having the *vanity* of repatriating a constitution at a time of
national unrest in the country.  And, yes, I'm blaming him for damaging
the current attempts at fixing Trudeau's initial mess up.  Reread my posts.
 

 

-- 
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: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:02:28 GMT

In article <13029@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:

>> [...]  You see, just because Quebec goes off the 
>>deep end, doesn't mean the rest of Canada will become intolerant.

>Encore des idioties. Essaie de te faire servir au Restaurant en
>francais a l'exterieur du Quebec et tu passeras pour un martien. Meme
>a Ottawa, cas ne marche que tres irregulierement. Fait le contraire au
>Quebec, et ca marche a peu pres n'importe ou.
>
>Parlez-moi pas de tolerance, surtout quand ca ne parle probablement
>pas un mot de francais.

Just because someone can't speak French doesn't mean the person is
intolerant of francophones. You're right that most Vancouver
restaurants couldn't take your order in French, but it's because
they don't get enough francophone customers to justify making French
a condition of employment.

I doubt you speak Swedish, Francois, but are you intolerant of Swedes?

Mathew Englander.
Xref: sparky can.politics:7534 soc.culture.canada:7013
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:27:15 GMT
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.

grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>An examination of the consensus agreement on the constitution has
>revealed to me that there is nothing of Canada in it. There is a great
>deal of accommodation of the interests of various interest groups
>but there is nothing which unites these groups into a common
>nationality.

I see a lot of this in there too...

>Since the idea of a Canadian nationality which includes and encompasses
>the interests of the groups resident in Canada has been destroyed by this
>agreement and the debiliative processes that led to it, how should one
>vote in the referendum. My answer is to vote Yes.

I prefer to take a chance on the salvaging a Canada out of a No.

>This is not due to
>any approval of the principles expressed in the agreement but because
>acceptance of the agreement will produce the less economic hardship than
>its rejection.

Soon as a No result would be determined, all the Chicken Littles would change
their tune, since re-election is near, or to protect their investments, etc.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: The courts continue to take away our self-defense capability.
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:14:03 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Sep29.143823.26169@julian.uwo.ca>
wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes: 
   ...
   But when I flew my theory that the courts generally want to take away
   our ability to protect ourselves to a friend of mine, he said that
   "get some of that new pepper spray.  It's organic, etc, etc". 
   ...

Worried about the Serbs crashing over the border any minute now?

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you're teaching classes, you don't necessarily have to know your
 subject.  If you watch movies there are many actors who are excellent
 teachers."
 - Alberta Advanced Education Minister John Gogo
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:05:40 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep28.214510.21071@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>It looks like Quebec and B.C. will be voting "no" in the referendum.
>
>If so, then Canadians will miss another opportunity to resolve
>the constitutional dispute.
>
>Worse, it will create an unwelcome opportunity for separatists
>to argue that Canada is a dead end for Quebec.
>
>But we will be free of this abortion we call the Charlottetown Accord.
>
>What should happen after the accord is rejected?
>
>--
>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
>Montreal

What about a new agreement proposed as a basis for next elections?
PC and PLC promoting some very close "renewed" constitution and
NDP (why not) promoting the obvious, asymetrical federalism?
PQ is already promoting asymetrical federalism (aka SOuverainete-Association).

Asymetrical federalism will solve 2 major problems addressed but not
resolved by Charlottetown agreement :
1- Special status for Quebec
2- Quebec being out of most power positions (doing on her own), Central Canada
has much less power than before and Westerners are happier and less
afraid by Central Canada.

The Natives problem is not yet resolved, but taking into account the
number of persons involved, this one is less important.

-- 
  \_\    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 !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:51:58 GMT

In article <BvICwF.EHr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: >
>: >This document proposes that, after the 1996 census, no matter what your
>: >population, you will have no worse than 95% of the seats you deserve. Find
>: >that good a deal elsewhere, I ask you.
>: 
>: So the argument is that having 95% of what, one might have considered
>: my rights of citizenship, is the best that I can do. Interesting. This
>: may be true. Is this supposed to make it attractive to me?
>
>It says "no less than". Many ridings do not have that now. Most of these
>ridings are not in BC. There is also provision for a permanent formula to
>ensure that it stays close to ideal rep-by-pop regardless of demographic
>changes.
>
>Lets also face facts that, in our current federal party system, your MPs do
>not vote on provincial lines, nor on personal beliefs -- they vote the party
>line.

This is true. What is also true is that the party line depends on how
many seats are located where. Recall MacDonald and Riel, or Trudeau
and the NEP.
  
>
>   21:
>     A permanent formula should be developed and section 51 of the
>   Constitution Act, 1867 should be adjusted to accommmodate demographic
>   change

Section 21 is not internally consistent. If Quebec's share of the
Canadian population falls more than a couple of points, then it may
be mathematically impossible to satisfy all of the clauses of Section
21. What happens then? The accord does not say.

Notice too that the part of the section 21 that you quote is hardly
capable of an unambiguous interpretation. "A permanent formula should
be developed..." Personally, I would like to know what that formula
will be. As far as I can tell "accommmodate demographic change" does
not necessarily mean rep by pop. How big are the permissible bounds?
Joe Clark was given a rather rough ride on this score here in
Vancouver. He answered by changing the subject.
From: jason@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Rasku)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 23:19:39 PDT
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

> In article <BvCsyx.6M7@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) w
> >
> >You'll have to get your head out of the sand. If the constitution is not
> >fixed, there will be no Canada. We can't go on without a constitution. Quebe
> >will not remain unless they are a part of a new constitution. Voting NO will
> >simply require that we amend the constitution in a new way. That the
> >Charlottetown agreement is the first to be agreed to by all provinces, nativ
> >groups, the federal government, the territories, etc is very significant. It
> >implies that the only type of agreement that will be acceptable to these
> >groups will be fundamentally similar to the Charlottetown Accord.
> >You won't be able to get by with the current situation.
> >
> 
> The deal that came out of Charlottetown was nothing like what
> ordinary Canadians were willing to consider in the 5 peoples'
> conferences.  The premiers went back behind closed does and
> came up with Meech again.  Ordinary Canadians, although I
> personally don't think significant asymmetry can work, were
> open to the idea of asymmetrical powers, proportional representation,
> a more inclusive Canada Clause...we need to get someone other
> than the premiers to control the proposition part of the process.
> The legislatures can still control ratification, but we're in
> an idea straitjacket, because first ministers when they go behind
> closed doors revert to the old ideas and turf protection and 
> empire-building.
> 
> The people should be able to consider a whole slew of options 
> including things like proportional representation, a triple-E
> Senate, asymmetry, and even sovereignty, but the premiers block
> the consideration of different ideas by their control of
> the process.
> 
> Gerald
> 

I personaly am voting no and want EVERYONE who disagrees with the deal to 
do so themselves.  There are various things that I don't like.  The 25% 
representation of Quebec in (one of the groups can't remmeber which it 
was).  The removal of Federal juristiction over MANY IMPORTANT areas.  
Also what the government seems to be doing with the accord.  First the 
question is rarther ambigiuous and they aparently are not releasing the 
deal until the 26th.  They exspect us to vote on something we can't even 
see before we vote.  If Quebec leaves then I think that is fine if that's 
what they want.  Also for Qubecois I believe that they should vote 
against it beccause the apparently didn't get as good a deal as they 
could have.  Of course if they get any better deal I will continue to 
vote no.  

        A NO VOTE IS NOT A VOTE AGAINST CANADA BUT A VOTE AGAINST A DEAL 
WE CANNOT SEE BEFORE WE VOTE!!!!!

                                                        Jason Rasku
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:47:29 GMT

David Adrien Tanguay (dat@thinkage.on.ca) wrote:
>gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill) writes:
>>     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.
>
>Make all amendments 7/50. Then we could fix things that turn out to be bad.
>E.g., how will the new senate work? If it turns out bad, where a coalition
>of small provinces blocks everything, or conflicting party objectives does so,
>or whatever, it will be very difficult to fix, since whoever profits by it
>has a veto.

I would argue for something between 7/60 and 7/75 along with the
requirement for a ratification referendum. A constitution should be
changeable, but it should not be easy to change. As well, the constitution
belongs to the people, not the politicians, hence the ratification
referendum. An open question would be whether winner-takes-all is used in
calculating the number of yeas and nays.

[yes, this is off topic]

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:41:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.161115.6946@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.230442.2671@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>The Charter comes with a notwithstanding clause...it did not change
>>the powers of the Quebec National Assembly.
>  [ ... ]
>>Trudeau changed hardly anything...all he did was patriate the damn
>>constitution...the current gang is the gang that wants to change
>>everything.
>>Gerald
>
>  Then since nothing was changed, I take it you do not object to an 
>amendment to drop the Charter and its Notwithstanding clause from the 
>current Constitution and return completely to the former status quo.

No...let's have a referendum on it, and give people the choice of
a Charter(with the NWC) or No Charter at all...I personally prefer
the Charter(with the NWC) to no charter at all...because although
it does not change the actual powers of legislatures to restrict
individual rights, it makes the political cost of doing so greater
...which is a net plus.  As our parliamentary system adjusts to
a charter system, and when we get a proper appointment procedure to
the Supreme Court, then I could see the eventual removal of the NWC...
but I see the "reasonableness" clause and the Canada Clause as 
more insidious clauses against individual rights than the NWC.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:47:51 GMT

gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill) writes:
>     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.

Make all amendments 7/50. Then we could fix things that turn out to be bad.
E.g., how will the new senate work? If it turns out bad, where a coalition
of small provinces blocks everything, or conflicting party objectives does so,
or whatever, it will be very difficult to fix, since whoever profits by it
has a veto.

>     Fix it, don't burn it!

I've been thinking along these lines recently, too. Why didn't they start
with Meech and tinker with the more objectionable aspects?
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics