HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:03:53 GMT

Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
: 
: As I understand it, that is a one-time "guarantee". After any changes
: resulting from the 1996 census all bets are off. Indeed, with the Quebec
: 25% floor provision it is mathematically *impossible* to guarantee a
: per-province 95% floor.

There is provision for a permanent formula to keep rep-by-pop.

   21:
     A permanent formula should be developed and section 51 of the
   Constitution Act, 1867 should be adjusted to accommmodate demographic
   change

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:47:12 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BvALAy.CLE@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>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.

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.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Social programs: Manning vs Redick: who's correct?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 16:43:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.151352.11175@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>
>One simple question: how will social programs be affected if the
>                     proposals are adopted into our constitution?

I believe also that NATIONAL federal programs are possibly at risk
because of the decentralizing aspects of the new proposal (_nobody_
is pretending that the provinces are not getting more powers, at
the expense of the federal government.) It is not clear whether this
will be worse or better; certainly it will mean that control will
no longer be consistent federal jurisdiction and as a nation, we
will be less likely to be served with identical social programs as we
travel out of province.  

I don't think this is the worst part of the proposal although it
is possibly Rebick's strong suit (certainly her genderized Senate
is undemocratic.) Coyne makes a good case for opposing the proposal
for other reasons and they are reasons I believe that _should_ turn
people against the proposal. 

Frank.
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:57:40 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <BvC8Bx.H3H@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.143552.18732@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>>  Everytime you vote you sign a blank check. There are term limitations,
>>but elected officials are within the bounds of the laws fully empowered
>>to do what they want with their elected office.
>>  This is called representative democracy - why is this vote any different?
>
>a)  There is a term limitation.  We have no such limitation on the
>    constitution (how about, we vote on it Oct 26, if it passes it gets
>    to be the constitution for 5 years, and then Oct 26, '97 we get another
>    vote to decide if we want to keep it or not)

  As citizens we can change the Constitution anytime we want. As a matter of
fact I thought that is what we were currently engaged in doing. You don't
need to wait for a five year vote ...

>b)  And far more relevant, just because I have to give my MP a blank cheque
>    (I would like to change this), is no grounds for giving the gov't 
>    another blank cheque.  Or to put it another way; tell me, Ross, if
>    you do something stupid, do you go and do other stupid things, 'cause
>    after all, you've already done one stupid thing?

  I never thought democracy or voting was stupid ... I guess I didn't get
taught the right things in political indoctrination class :-)

  However, I did get taught that voting was a serious responsibility and
not something to be done for trivial reasons, because as voters we are
responsible for the results that emanate from our choices. Money back
guarantees were never discussed as some sort of protection against 
stupidity.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:02:02 GMT

In article <BvEJ1G.Atw@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>This is what the ammendments to the Constitution are all about. How can you
>believe it is good that this happen, but bad that the Accord says it should
>happen? Hypocritical.

Not at all hypocritical.  I think the driving code is a good thing.  I don't
think IT should be entrenched in the constitution.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:46:58 GMT

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

Have you ever lived in Northern New Brunswick.  I have.  It's 80% French.
As to what language they use - they start in French.  In fact, in Shippigan
I had to speak French to the doctor to describe my symptoms.
Yes, Francois, there is a lot of French outside of Quebec.
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: What does Quebec take with them when they go, and who decides?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:10:21 GMT

Wayne Smith (wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca) wrote:
: A while ago I got a pamphlet from APEC (alliance for the preservation of
: english in Canada).  It made 3 points concerning different land masses
: within Q-bek.  I can dig the pamphlet up, but they gave somewhat
: believable arguments about each point.

I wouldn't believe anything they wrote. APEC is a white-supremacist,
anti-french group. I'm ashamed to say that they had a lot of support around
my home town in eastern ontario (red necks etc)

: 
: The point is, what are the rules that the fed gov't would operate under
: with regards to Q-bek separation in terms of what territory they get?

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.

What I predict would happen would be:

1) Quebec will deny responsibility for any of the deficit
2) All federal institutions in the province would be nationalised
3) English Canada will not allow Quebec to use the Canadian Dollar
4) Trade will go down the toilet
5) Atlantic provinces will be isolated.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:31:17 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct1.015139.25793@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
: >Some postings have said or implied that under the Canada Clause,
: >individual rights are not recognized as a fundamental characteristic
: >of Canada.
: >
: >This is incorrect. The text is:
: >	
: >	2. (1) The Constitution of Canada, including the _Canadian
: >	Charter of Rights and Freedoms_, shall be interpreted in a 
: >	manner consistent with the following fundamental character-
: >	istics:
: >		[...]
: >	    (f) Canadians are commited to a respect for individ-
: >	    ual and collective human rights and freedoms of all
: >	    people;
: >		[...]
: >
: 
: The Charter is not recognized as a fundamental characteristics...
: and to be meaningful, an entry in the Canada Clause should be
: something like:

It doesn't have to be. It still exists. It still has force of law. The Canada
clause only adds to it, and interprets it where it is week.
: 

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: What does Quebec take with them when they go, and who decides?
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:31:01 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep30.162423.8098@bmerh85.bnr.ca> coghlan@bnr.ca (Patrick Coghlan) writes:
>
>Quebec doesn't care.  They've already picked a new currency - the Frontenac.
>

Isn't it the pEcu ?

-- 
  \_\    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 !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 16:56:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.135007.24107@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>
>  Not that many of us have not wished Frank would follow his own advice
>on occasion, but it is interesting that those who take exception to his
>comment have immediately equated 'appreciation' with legislatively forced
>compliance.
>
>  It seems to me that examination of the disposition of the proponents
>of both sides, says more about the dangers of clinging to the old ways, 
>than taking a chance on the new ... I have more confidence in the
>positive outlooks of people like June Callwood or Ives Fortier, than
>the political negativism that seems to have returned with such fervour
>these last few days.



Please do not confuse Francois with "Frank". We are not the same person.
Robin is Frank.

I am quite disappointed with June Callwood to tell the truth.
Everything she has stood for in her life is opposite to the YES position. 
I think she has misjudged this one.
I cannot see her wanting to entrench "distinctness" and special rights
to aboriginals (rights to self-determination should not be limited
by "race" surely), vetos, and voting contrary to proportional representation.
And yet she has swung behind the YES camp.

Odd.


Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Trudeau - Dark Lord of Hypocrisy, Anti-christ, Non-eater of Vege
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:48:42 GMT

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca) wrote:
: 
:   brian, FTR, Mr Mulroney is more respnible for creating a yet bigger mess when
: he CLAIMED that Quebec was alienated.

How do you figure that? After MEECH, Quebec was alienated. Seems like you
meant SHOWED rather than CLAIMED.

: 
:   Furthur: Mr. Levesque, then Quebec premier in 1982, would NEVER want equal
: rights on an equal playing, i.e. the term Quebec's distinct Society.

It's pretty easy to put thought and words into someone who cannot answer. Not very accurate,
though. I could easily say that Sir John A. likes the agreement, he told me
so yesterday.

: 
: PLEASE, get the facts straight!!

Please get some facts.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Canadian newspapers
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep30.164429.22395@spxtech.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:10:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep30.164429.22395@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:


   From article <1992Sep27.210026.22617@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, by myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui):
   > 
   > Let's have a net.poll of what major newspapers publish in what city and
   > their political orientation. I'll make this entry:
   > 
   > Ottawa Citizen
   > 
   > Used to be left of center, certainly very Liberal, people-oriented,
   > with more political information than analysis, and what analysis there
   > is is OK by my standards.
   > 
   > Lately, they seem to me to have taken a turn to the right.  Susan Riley
   > no longer writes political commentary columns anymore, even though she
   > was the best Liberal (with a very big "L") contributor in the paper.
   > Her columns in the Lifestyles section is still excellent. I want her
   > back in the political section of the newspaper.
   > 

   Montreal Gazette

   Shamelessly Fed. Conservative & Qbc. Liberal.

   Ran a front page story on (Fed.) Liberals losing support a few months ago,
   when they dropped 2 percent in 6 months. That 2 percent was regained and
   the conservatives lost more a few weeks later. Front page? a paragraph
   buried inside somewhere.

   They also attack the Equality Party, when they give them any coverage at
   all, with an excessive zeal.

   The Gazette appears to be pro Bill 101. :-(

A reasonably accurate portrayal, but I wish to add the following:

As the only English language daily in Montreal, it also includes
contributing columnists representing a variety of opinions beyond
their official editorial stance.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Xref: sparky can.politics:7493 soc.culture.canada:6991
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:35:52 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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.

Now social justice and social equilibrium are noble  and worthy causes.
The plight of the starving masses in north eastern Africa is a
an issue demanding the attention of the world. However I see little
justification in sacrificing a portion of my standard of living to
placate the various interest groups whose views are expressed in the
new agreement.

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. 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.

Following the acceptance of this new "Constitution of Canada", there will
be time to evolve more realistic and practical arrangements. Canada has
been disolvled no matter the outcome of the October 26 vote. The current
problem is not to resuscitate a dead political system but to ameliorate the
problems resulting from its death and to create viable successor systems.
I know that there has been some tongue in cheek speculation on the
creation of Cascadia as a viable political entity. However realitically for
Ontario would not a political association with New York, Michigan and
the remainder of the Great Lake states make more sense than the existing
arrangement. Ontario shares common economic opportunties and environmental
problems with these regions. Ontario's interest in Newfoundland, Yukon,
and Quebec as examples is more nebulous.
-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:34:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.223014.5686@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>
>An expensive sham, perhaps, but hardly a "token consultation", sir.

I believe it was a "token consultation" in the sense that the gov't set
up many commissions to ask us what we wanted, and then turned around
and said; "well that's nice.  Here's what you get."
From: breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: PLAN B - aside
Keywords: referendum DSC Canada clause Native Rights
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:59:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: breton@olympus.mcrcim.mcgill.edu


Last week, I posted an article intitled "PLAN B".  I was privately 
asked "What about the Canada Clause?".  So, as a follow-up to my line 
of thinking...

October 26th, 1992: To those who think there is no Plan B. 

(...) 
_______________________________________________________________________ 

NOTE: NO CANADA CLAUSE, NO DISTINCT SOCIETY CLAUSE, NO ABORIGINAL'S 
RIGHTS CLAUSE

The CHARTER OF FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS is to be interpreted by judges with 
respect to the values of the society, just as it is now.  The values 
that Canadians share and the clivage within the country should be 
reflected by the laws and should be free to evolve.  The CANADA CLAUSE 
and the DISTINCT SOCIETY CLAUSE are only a source of irritation.  The 
fact that today, the aboriginals, Quebec and the rest of Canada are 
perceived as distinct societies or that Canadians share some set of 
values, is not a reason to freeze this moment in time.  

Furthermore, there is no reason to write in the constitution that 
aboriginals have the RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT if it is an INHERENT 
right.  Our governments have to respect the treaties that have already 
been signed and should try to work out new treaties to clarify 
misunderstandings and to improve relationships with every band.  

_______________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX: 
SUMMARY OF "PLAN B" PROPOSAL:

The People of each province have the RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT and the 
procedure to exercise this right is defined with respect the transfer
of legislative powers from one level of government to another.  

The provincial legislatures can OPT-OUT of federal programs. 
The provincial legislatures can attempted to block a common federal 
legislation (but not the budget) by gathering support within its region 
to exercise a REGIONAL VETO. 

No senate.

The "rep. by pop." House of Commons has a procedure to deal with the 
asymmetry that could evolve in the federation as People exercise their
right to self-government.  

___________________________________________________________________________




-- 
       __
      (..)        Pierre Breton
   --mm--mm--     breton@mcrcim.mcgill.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Referendum Rhetoric
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:43:47 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1175

From article <BvAxv2.2Kq@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier):
> 
> 	Je pensais justement a cela hier. J'ai l'impression que le gou-
> vernement essaie de nous vendre une nouvelle marque de savon. La 
> publicite americaine est semblable lorsqu'il tente de vendre un 
> nouvel appareil d'exercise par exemple.
> 	Avec ce nouveau produit (constitutionnel), les milliers d'emplois
> seront crees, tous le monde sera heureux, la pauvrete va disparaitre, ...
> alors que si on le refuse, se sera la guerre civile, un taux de chomage
> tres eleve, ...   Le debat est totalement ridicule.
> 
> 	La population canadienne (et ici j'inclue le Quebec) est-elle
> stupide au point qu'elle n'est pas en mesure de comprendre les explications
> ou bien nos gouvernants n'osent pas l'expliquer?
> 

Tu as raison, Robert. J'espere que ce n'est pas la realite.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:43:29 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

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).

-- 
  \_\    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 !