HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:21:24 GMT

Arnold Gill (gill@physics.ubc.ca) wrote:
: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: 
: >This is not a fraudulent argument. Our PM and premiers already have made a
: >deal. We've just watched them do it. They did it because it was good for
: >Canada. They did it because the electorate demanded it. Sure they were an
: >unlikely alliance, but they rose above personal differences to agree. I'm
: >sure the NDP premiers would have loved more on the Social Charter. I'm sure
: >the PC would have liked more for Government, etc,etc,etc. The fact is that
: >they agreed. They compromised. They rose above personal differences,
: >ideological differences, and compromised. This compromise is the best for ALL
: >Canadians. 
: 
:      You actually BELIEVE that the premiers rose above personal differences??
: What I see is something very different.  I see the premiers making a political
: compromise that will enhance their personal political power as much as 
: possible.  This accord is about a constitutional devolution of power to the
: provinces.  It is about the premiers permitting an ineffective Senate to be
: added and then removed in a few decades due to its redundancy, which again
: focuses the regional power into the premiers' hands.

Each premier gave up something. Ontario is having a hard time
accepting less than 1/10 of the Senate with 40% of the population. Do
you think that was easy for Bob Rae? He knew how hard that would be to
sell. Do you think that Don Getty had an easy time swallowing 25% for
Quebec? He did, though.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:42:04 GMT

In article <Zr1-BY_@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.204619.22393@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>>>  1. Will Ontario and Quebec ever accept a pure EEE senate?  NOT!
>>
>>Don't know.  However, an equitable for equal (five regions model) with
>>straight 50% normal majority rules would be substantially superior to
>>this setup.  Of course, as Gerald has already pointed out, the Feds could
>>easily enact a law making the present Senate elected.  It would be very
>>close to this model in terms of equitable, would not require any
>>constitutional changes, and would give people a good opportunity to see
>>how good or bad such a Senate would be without enshrining it in a 
>>document that requires all premiers to agree to change.
>>
>Actually, under section 42(1)(c), it would take a constitutional amendment
>(general formula 7/50) to start electing Senators.  It could be done without
>Quebec's agreement, but then Quebec would have more evidence of Canada's 
>lack of concern for its feelings.
>
>...mark young

Yes, and no.  Technically, yes.  But there is absolutly nothing to stop
the gov't from setting up a deal with each province that wishes to have
elected senators.  They would have an election, submit the names to the
PM, and he would appoint them.

(BTW, here's a piece of history trivia - did you know that if Meech had
not failed the GST would not have passed the senate?  Hmm, Mulroney had
to lose one or the other)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Problem with net news
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:03:11 GMT

Are they cencoring the news ?  :)
There seems to be a problem with the news feed out of toronto to
western, and I was wondering if you guys in TO had a similar
problem.  It seemed to start Friday at midnight.

I'm posting it here because this is the only group in my reading list
that is being updated with new postings.  Everything else is old
(last date = friday night).

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:01:58 GMT

In article <SBO.92Oct5121807@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>Now, someone will have to explain me something (and correct
>me if necessary):
>
>1. Westerners hate the "central" government
>

Westerners feel alienated from the central government...this does not
mean they hate it.  Preston Manning's rallying call is "The West wants
In"...westerners want their voices heard and represented in the federal
government, which has been the problem for 50 years, and why new
political parties keep on forming in the West.  The movement for a 
EEE Senate is another example of this, although it is really oversold
as a panacea...an equitable Senate that was more effective would be
better than an equal one, in my opinion.

>2. Westerners are against a division of powers so that this
>"central" government stays strong.
>
>(A bit contradictory, I think)
>

The Western premiers want more powers...the average Western citizen
wants to exert more power in Ottawa...the problem is that the premiers
do the negotiating and the premiers don't really want an effective
Senate, since it would detract from their powers.

>Why are westerners against a decentralised government? This
>would free the western provinces from the "nasty
>central government", while accomodating Quebec.
>

Canada is already the most decentralized federation in the world...
Quebec and the rest of the provinces are already among the most
autonomous and powerful subunits of any federal state anywhere.

I personally think more decentralization is possible, but it has
to be carefully done, and Charlottetown doesn't do this the right
way...it balkanizes the country completely...and essentially insures
its slow disintegration into chaos and eternal bickering. Any further
decentralization also has to come with an economic union and a 
common market insuring the free movement of good, services, capital,
and people.

I don't particularly think that asymmetrical federalism is workable,
but I would not be opposed to a constituent assembly developing a model
of asymmetrical federalism, because I think it would be summarily
rejected by both Quebeckers and Canadians when they saw the details.

The only viable options are basically mild asymmetry as we have now 
and sovereignty.  Charlottetown is neither and is a recipe for
disintegration.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:21:06 GMT

In article <BvG90H.IJ3@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.021920.14154@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>In article <BvBsxG.8rL@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>>>
>>>Asymetrical federalism will solve 2 major problems addressed but not
>>>resolved by Charlottetown agreement :
>>
>>I'm not clear on what asymmetircal federalism is.
>>
>>I think we can saitsfiy Quebec and some other provinces if:
>>
>
>[discusion about federalism that can be renewed by more decentralisation]
>
>Drawback of this point : Quebec wants decentralized federalism and CHQ don't.
>We can see Asymmetrical Federalism as : allowing every provinces to all
>powers available (except those really needed to supervise/perform general
>tasks like post offices etc.), but since most provinces won't want these
>powers, Ottawa will keep them for every provinces except Quebec (and other
>that will eventually need specific powers like Alberta on natural resources).

I guess this could be an interim solution. Trudeau Federalism, with opt out
to decentralisation/sovereignty assoc. if wanted. I suppose if English
Canada actually wants to huddle together, that would happen.

This leaves a loose end, and this is probably why English Canada whines
about the Quebec "special privileges" red-herring. If English Canada retains
existing Federalism, and Quebec opts for more sovereignty over its own
affairs, would Quebec MPs abstain from votes affecting Federal powers
(affecting English Canada) when Quebec has exclusive provincial control
over those powers?

Let me explain better:

Under asymmetrical federalism, suppose BC opts for exclusive control over
its fishing, and the rest of Canada keeps a federal fishing policy.
Then shouldn't BC abstain from Commons votes affecting the fishing policy
for the rest of Canada? IF BC did vote, it would alrady have the power to
do what it wanted, plus BC would be influencing policy outside its borders/
jurisdiction. Asymmetrical Federalism would have to address this issue.




>
>-- 
>  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
> /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
>J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
>\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu secret      Mon opinion ? Non !


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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              VE7JPM |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:36:52 GMT

In article <BvIEMw.Gwq@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Paul A.S. Ward (pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: 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.
>
>Vote YES and you will see this.

Then vote no, instead, and you get to see the no proposals.  
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Nothing is free ... (Was: Ontario "socialism")
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:04:02 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: Studies have shown that deterrence fees are not cost-effective...it
: is cheaper for people to go the doctor sooner than later.

Agreed 100%.

: 
: What we need to do is not have deterrance fees, but make the health
: premium or health tax visible...for example: have an N% flat rate 
: income tax dedicated to health care funding...and take N% off the
: top of every welfare check and UI check as well.

The problem with a flat rate for all income brackets is that this is much
harder on lower-income people. Lower income people spend a greater proportion
of their income on necessities, leaving less for the tax department. This is
one of the reasons I oppose the GST. An across the board tax penalizes
exponentially as you lower income. A better way would be to base the tax on
your current tax bracket (this ignores the problem of inequities, but o
well).

It seems silly to me to pay tax on UI or Welfare -- the government spends
money keeping track of giving you money, and then spends money keeping track
of you giving it back. Dumb. 

: 
: In Ontario, a payroll tax (or a hidden income tax) is used anyway
: for example...let's just make it a visible tax so people are aware
: of the cost of the system.
: 

We are aware of the cost. We know that between 9 and 10% of our GNP is spent
on medicare annually. We also know the total government revenues.

I don't think we need new taxes with new administration departments when the
old system is working.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:08:51 GMT

robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
: In article <1992Sep23.183439.27422@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
: >But the question is not whether PET is a demigod and Manning snookers GIS
: >cheques from little old ladies. The question is whether the two men are
: >saying basically the same thing wrt to the Constitution and Quebec
: >nationalists.  So far nobody appears willing to attempt to prove that they
: >are not. (no brownie points for stating the obvious: i.e., that Manning's
: >language has been much more toned down than Trudeau's)
: 
: 
: No, I think the issue is whether what they are saying is true or not,
: not if one is saying the same as the other. 
: 
: I am no fan of Preston Manning, but not everything that issues from his
: mouth is a lie. One reason he is gaining influence is because a lot 
: of things he says are obviously true and are no longer being said by
: the rest of the political elites. 

Heh.  Again, it's remarkable how Manning is suddenly proclaimed 
to occasionally say things which are "obviously true", simply due to 
the fact that Trudeau has said the same.  Heh.

: But let's attack the CONTENT of their arguments if we disagree and commend
: the CONTENT if there is validity.  I'm a little tired ot all the ad hominem 
: garbage, which discusses Trudeau as "yesterday's man", instead of what he
: says. His arguments in the essay seem pretty well reasoned to me.
: Convince me otherwise with reasoned ideas.

His arguments have the same intellectual weight as those of Pat Carney 
or John Turner. Ho hum.

: Time to THINK folks. Forget the guilt by association stuff.

That's a good idea.  So why don't people take Trudeau's opinions for what 
their worth, instead of elevating them as they have in the past few weeks?
Seriously, Trudeau is a man who would rather see Canada dissolve than follow
a course which strays from his narrow, rigid "vision" of the country.
Trudeau deserves to be criticized with the same level of rhetoric and
ad hominem that he so generously delivers to others.

Here's a better idea:  let's ignore the Trudeau distraction, and carry on 
thinking for ourselves, if that is possible.

-- 
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: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:26:00 GMT

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.
>

It is way to early to suggest that...

>If so, then Canadians will miss another opportunity to resolve
>the constitutional dispute.
>

I think NO will go a lot further to resolving our constitutional
debate than YES will, and cause a lot fewer new problems.

>Worse, it will create an unwelcome opportunity for separatists
>to argue that Canada is a dead end for Quebec.
>

It was for the most part the YES supporters that opened the
Pandora's box in the mid-eighties before the country was
ready for or required a new constitutional debate.  Quebec
nationalism was quiescent and it was reawakened prematurely by
political incompetents.

>But we will be free of this abortion we call the Charlottetown Accord.
>
>What should happen after the accord is rejected?
>

There will be elections in Alberta, Quebec, and federally...which
means the economy gets a big Keynesian stimulus as politicians get
whiplash moving from "the sky is falling" to "gee, I can't see
nothing but blue sky."

The current constitution endured 125 years...it can endure a few
more.   

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:52:46 GMT
Distribution: can

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
> It seems unreasonable to me to agree to anything without checking
> the fine print [...]

When I was ten my father made me promise never to sign anything until
I'd read and understood it all.

I'm voting no for exactly this reason.

Is anybody else really, REALLY, pissed off that the constitution
is being written in legal jargon.   At least in the US they
can teach about the constitution in school because they can
read it (well,  most of them can :-).   Our constitution will
be full term course in the final year of law school.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:00:23 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <Gjy-CLA@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>If the growth patterns of the last forty years are any indication, BC will
>>pass Quebec some time between 2041 and 2051.  This still works if we take
>>the last thirty or even twenty years as the comparison---I haven't tried
>>any other numbers, but I expect any shorter is too little data and any
>>further gets us back to pre-QR Quebec.  Quebec will have 25% of House seats
>>while BC will have less than 19%.  
>
>Those any one has a breakup of how BC and Quebec had increased since say
>30 or 40 years?  If BC get a lot of immigrants from Asia because of
>Viet-Nam war, Hong-Kong end of rental and reasons like that, then growing
>will slow down.  But, if BC get a lot of immigrants from other provinces
>because of better opportunity, then growing can be expected to remain.
>Knowing the reason for different growing rate would help to evaluate
>when the population of BC will really be the same, if ever, as Quebec.
>
The growth of BC w.r.t Quebec is not simply a recent phenomenon.  It has
been going on since Confederation.  Here is a chart of the growth:

Year     BC      Quebec
----  -------    ------
1871   0.9759    32.285
1881   1.1329    31.445
1891   2.0277    30.809
1901   3.3327    30.702
1911   5.4530    27.834
1921   5.9741    26.866
1931   6.6879    27.706
1941   7.1087    28.956
1951   8.3161    28.953
1961   8.9319    28.835
1971  10.131     27.949
1981  11.276     26.447
1991  12.023     25.263

BC has been gaining 1%/decade on Canada since 1871.  Quebec, on the other
hand, has been losing 1%/decade except for a brief time in the middle of
this century.  I see no reason to believe that BC is going to stop growing
any time soon (unlike Quebec, which has recently dropped to almost
no-growth:

Years      BC       QC      Diff
-------  ------   -----    -----
1871-81   36.11   14.19    21.92
1881-91  100.00    9.49    90.52
1891-01   82.65   10.75    71.91
1901-11  119.55   21.65    97.90
1911-21   33.59   17.70    15.89
1921-31   32.19   21.77    10.42
1931-41   17.87   15.90     1.97
1941-51   42.42   21.73    20.69
1951-61   39.83   29.66    10.17
1961-71   34.13   14.62    19.51
1971-81   25.63    6.80    18.83
1981-91   19.56    7.11    12.45

In almost every census period---and in every one of the past five
decades---BC has outgrown Quebec by 10 to 20 percentage points).

The question is not _whether_ BC will catch Quebec, but _when_.

...mark young

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:11:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.133814.26392@mongrel.UUCP> amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) writes:
>
>Here's a new thought (and boy, do we need some in this constitutional
>muddle):
>
>   If the referendum/plebiscite passes, and everything gets sorted
>   out, perhaps the increased stability will halt the decline in
>   Quebec's population.  Perhaps more people, businesses etc. will
>   consider locating in Quebec.  Perhaps people might move there
>   from other provinces.  Perhaps more people will immigrate.
>
>   Then the 25% guarantee may not come into play at all, because
>   Quebec may not drop below 25% of the population.
>
>   Something to chew on...
>

In that case, I assume everyone is agreed that the 25% clause
can safely be removed from the package...and not entrenched for
perpetuity...

...let's hear the AYE's

...and the NAY'S

...what Robert Bourassa says NAY...I wonder why?

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Trudeau at the Eggroll Inn
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 13:48:20 GMT

  Bravo Trudeau.
  How about the theory that he chose to speak at La Maison Eggrolls
  in order to make a pointed point about language laws, minority
  rights and equality.

  From the little bit I've heard of his intervention last night,
  a pretty impressive show.

  I agree with his hierarchy arguments and his concerns about
  aboriginal self-government likely to be based on "race" and thus
  out of bounds to "non-aboriginals".  


  Frank.
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:52:34 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:

>>Now Rheal, you tell me what will happen to the rights of francophones
>>outside Quebec.

>Well, they will be protected in New Brunswick, and also in Ontario, and
>quite probably in Manitoba.  You see, just because Quebec goes off the 
>deep end, doesn't mean the rest of Canada will become intolerant.

On verra.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: What does Quebec take with them when they go, and who decides?
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:10:50 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 559

From article <1992Sep29.144641.27218@julian.uwo.ca>, by wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith):
> 
> Can we trust the current or future crop of fed politicos to negociate
> the "correct" deal, as far as logic and past historical contracts go?

No.

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