HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:48:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.173516.12392@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>
>  Ok, then give up the demand for a triple E senate if the result is too
>expensive, or you can't quite figure out how to make it work. However,
>I note that most premiers who wanted this seemed to think that the trade
>was still a beneficial one, or they wouldn't have gone for it.
>

Regarding the trade of the 25% threshold and the somewhat elected,
ineffective, and equal Senate...

This is a misleading argument...Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, NB, NS,
PEI, and Nfld lost absolutely nothing by agreeing to the 25% limit...
because they are safely protected by 100% percent of rep. by pop.
already and constitutionally entrenched floors...plus the equal Senate
distorts the small provinces representation in Parliament upward even
more.  Bob Rae is not exactly a great democrat...

...i.e. he was fighting for a justiciable Social
Charter where unelected judges would be telling us how to spend our
tax dollars, and Getty's political credibility rested on the the
magic word EQUAL and so the entire 25% threshold for Quebec rested
on Mikey Harcourt's ability to count...and unfortunately for BC'ers,
he can't.

Mike Harcourt was basically duped by other premiers who are protected
from losing anything by the 25% threshold, or like Getty who were
tilting at their own personal windmills.

>
>  The other point is that this is a significant foot in the door for
>Senate reform. Over time its powers will increase of wane depending on
>how well it gets used or abused. I think the stepwise approach where
>it is clear there is room for more reform rather than the all-or-nothing
>approach has considerable merit.
>

If you want an evolution of Senate reform, the requirement for unanimity
for future changes to it shouldn't be entrenched.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:22:45 GMT

In article <08OCT92.09328660.0066@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.162136.14744@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>   Text on possible future representation of Quebec and BC in House
>   of Commons deleted
>
>>This is NOT the worst case scenario...the representation of BC, Alberta,
>>and Ontario will be further reduced because the other small provinces
>>are at 100% of rep. by pop. or significantly above 100% also.
>
>True.  Why is the overrepresentation of the small provinces not
>being more vigorously deplored?

It is...but this is not a justification for making the system worse
than it already is...at least with the current floors for the small
provinces, the perturbations and distortions become smaller over time...
Charlottetown moves us irreversibly from representation by population.

>>
>>The ratio of 125%/94% gives about a 30% difference in voting power
>>between a person in BC (or Alberta and Ontario) and Quebec...which
>>is not insignificant...it means it will take 4 BC'er to equal 3
>>Quebeckers.
>>
>It already takes 3 BC'ers to equal 1 PEIslander. Shouldn't something
>be done about this?
>

If the distortion amounted to 20-30MP's like it may for Quebec in 30
years instead of 1 or 2 MP's as is currently the case with PEI, there
would be a much greater fuss.  The overrepresentation of PEI only
marginally affects the votes in BC or Alberta...the overrepresentation
in Quebec in 30 years will cancel out over half the votes in BC or
in Alberta.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:47:28 GMT

>>>With all this talk on the referendum, I was wondering if the Montreal Canadiens
>>>and the Quebec Nordiques will have to leave the NHL if Quebec separates?
>>

	Given that the NHL already spans two nations, I don't see that
a third would make any difference.

	But while we're on this flight of fancy, it's worth considering
that Montreal would probably have to rename it's team.... "Les Canadiens"
might not cut it any more.  Peut-t'etre "Les Habitants", ou "Les
Quebecois", ou "Les Souvraintistes"?  (pardon the spelling, SVP)


			....Jose

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
".sig quotes are silly"|Kenneth C. Moyle          kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca 
 - Kenneth C. Moyle    |Department of Biochemistry     MOYLEK@MCMASTER.BITNET 
                       |McMaster University       ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!kenm 
Xref: sparky can.general:4868 soc.culture.canada:7392
From: yt1@eng.cam.ac.uk (Y. Tremblay)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:26:32 GMT
Organization: Cambridge University Engineering Department, UK

In article <1992Oct9.144728.18864@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) writes:
>>>>With all this talk on the referendum, I was wondering if the Montreal Canadiens
>>>>and the Quebec Nordiques will have to leave the NHL if Quebec separates?
>>>
>
>	Given that the NHL already spans two nations, I don't see that
>a third would make any difference.
>
>	But while we're on this flight of fancy, it's worth considering
>that Montreal would probably have to rename it's team.... "Les Canadiens"
>might not cut it any more.  Peut-t'etre "Les Habitants", ou "Les
>Quebecois", ou "Les Souvraintistes"?  (pardon the spelling, SVP)
>
>
>			....Jose
>

You have to remember who were "Les Canadiens" not so long ago. (Esp. when
the team was created).  The rest were called "Les Anglais".  Since the name
"Canadien" was originaly for french-canadians, maybe if a separation occur,
Quebec could have a legal claim on the name :-)  A bit like the greek that
don't want to allow a country name Macedonia :-)

More seriously (and apolitical), the administration of the team answered this
question sometimes last year and said that the name would stay the same. 

Yannick
From: davem@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave McCrady)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: The Accord - legal text
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 09:39:05 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #8, Edmonton, AB, Canada

  Quite a few people have requested copies of the legal text of the
Charlottetown Accord.   Rather than getting involved in several dozen
mailings, I will be posting it here, in four parts.


Dave McCrady              davem@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Copyright Law
Date: 16 Oct 1992 00:37:42 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

cahduns@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Henry Dunsmore) writes:
>
>The University of PEI is currently reviewing the copyright laws of Canada to
>determine the exact letter of the law as it applies.  I have a raft of
>material on copyright to read and decipher, but I am interested in the
>process of investigation of copyright infringement.
>	Have there been any cases come to trial (I know about the Toronto
>	Police Force lawsuit)?

What is this? I haven't heard about it.
There have been a few cases regarding computer software and videos, and a
great many regarding music.

>Sorry if this is the wrong place to place this message, but I'm starting to
>scratch surface on this issue and I'm not sure who might know this stuff. 
>Any assistance, direction, leads, names, reports, etc would be greatly
>appreciated!

Find the Canada Statute Citator and look up the Copyright Act. It will
give you all the cases in which the Act has been cited.

Also check the magazine Quill & Quire, September 1992, page 1. This is an
article I wrote on the Canadian Reprography Collective, or CANCOPY, which
is an organization that funnels royalties from copyright users to
copyright owners. CANCOPY deals only with reprographic (e.g. photocopying)
rights.

Mathew Englander.

Newsgroups: can.general
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henriksen)
Subject: Re: Reform Party's position
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 12:32:35 GMT

In article <81iasB1w165w@student.business.uwo.ca>, h4robins@student.business.uwo.ca (Heather Robinson) writes:
|> Could someone please explain something to me?
|> I thought the whole appeal of the Reform Party was that they were 
|> promising to represent the views of Canadians in Parliament.  People are 
|> sick of politicians who have their own political agenda behind everything 
|> and who go off to Ottawa and stop listening to what their riding wants.  
|> If the Reform Party is such a grassroots "we'll listen to you" type of 
|> party, how can they be so vigorously campaigning for the NO side with so 
|> much of the country still undecided?  Am I missing something?  Or are 
|> they actually being very inconsistent?
|> 
|> h4robins@student.business.uwo.ca (Heather Robinson)
|> Western Business School  --  London, Ontario

Well, the "you" they listen to is the party rank-and-file.  Whether they are
being inconsistent depends on what position that group supports.  I'll give
you a hint though, when they went for the 'no' position they lost 78 members
who supported the 'yes' side but gained 2800 new members for their position.

As far as the undecided issue goes, the CBC shows most people ARE decided with
about an even split each way.  Of course, that's a national average which means
diddly squat wrt the accord's acceptance - in Quebec, Alberta and BC the 'no'
side is ahead so the Feds probably won't even be able to push the 7-50 provisions
of the accord.
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:14:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.125742.25648@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>lavackm@wl.aecl.ca writes:
>
>>With all this talk on the referendum, I was wondering if the Montreal Canadiens
>>and the Quebec Nordiques will have to leave the NHL if Quebec separates?
>
>I'm not a hockey fan, but I was wondering why the National Hockey League
>already includes two nations.  Or is the border really an "imaginary line"?
>Given this, the NHL could encompass many national territories.

It is called a National league because it was initially all Canadian.
Someone said the Senators where getting back after 58 years.  So, I presume
years ago, it was including teams like Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal
and maybe Calgary and Edmonton or Hamilton or Winnipeg (no idea which one).
Does anyone has the details?

-- 
  \_\    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 indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.general,kw.general,ont.general,tor.general,ut.general,uw.general,uwo.general,rec.sport.baseball
From: disco@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Darlene King - DCS)
Subject: WANTED WORLD SERIES TICKETS
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:46:17 GMT

Wanted desperately World Series tickets for the skydome any day preferably all
three. The number of tickets needs to be more than one (any number other than
that will do).

Please contact me at disco@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca, as soon as possible.

Thankyou...Darlene
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:34:10 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: Regarding the trade of the 25% threshold and the somewhat elected,
: ineffective, and equal Senate...
: 
: This is a misleading argument...Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, NB, NS,
: PEI, and Nfld lost absolutely nothing by agreeing to the 25% limit...
: because they are safely protected by 100% percent of rep. by pop.
: already and constitutionally entrenched floors...plus the equal Senate
: distorts the small provinces representation in Parliament upward even
: more.  Bob Rae is not exactly a great democrat...
: 
: ...i.e. he was fighting for a justiciable Social
: Charter where unelected judges would be telling us how to spend our
: tax dollars, and Getty's political credibility rested on the the
: magic word EQUAL and so the entire 25% threshold for Quebec rested
: on Mikey Harcourt's ability to count...and unfortunately for BC'ers,
: he can't.

You have previously argued with me about how the Social Charter SHOULD be
justiciable -- what has changed your mind this time? I don't think you can
say Bob Rae is not for democracy -- that is simply your somewhat biased
opinion.

: 
: Mike Harcourt was basically duped by other premiers who are protected
: from losing anything by the 25% threshold, or like Getty who were
: tilting at their own personal windmills.

Mike Harcourt was not "duped" -- he compromised, like all other premiers, to
achieve a deal that was good for Canada as a whole. To suggest that some
province came out ahead of another is just another of your divisive
arguments.

: 
: >
: >  The other point is that this is a significant foot in the door for
: >Senate reform. Over time its powers will increase of wane depending on
: >how well it gets used or abused. I think the stepwise approach where
: >it is clear there is room for more reform rather than the all-or-nothing
: >approach has considerable merit.
: >
: 
: If you want an evolution of Senate reform, the requirement for unanimity
: for future changes to it shouldn't be entrenched.
: 

If you simply want Senate reform that only central Canada wants, of course it
shouldn't be entrenched requiring unanymity. If you want all Canadians to
have to agree, why not require unanimous decisions?


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.general
From: hall@cs.sfu.ca (Gary Hall)
Subject: Re: The Queen. (of Canada?).
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:13:10 GMT

In article <435@catnix.UUCP> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond) writes:
>>    Do we wish to abolish British royalty here?
>>

I say:

******************************************************************
* YES       *    Boucley@ere.umontreal.ca                        *
****************************************************************** 
* OUI       *    beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca                       * 
****************************************************************** 
* OUI       *    robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca                         * 
****************************************************************** 
* OUI       *    michele%catnix@cam.org                          *
******************************************************************
* OUI       *    hall@cs.sfu.ca                                  *
******************************************************************

and the sooner the better - certainly before the ascension of the King
in waiting, and certainly before the British do it for themselves!


-- 
Gary Hall                  | Voice (604) 291-3208 | INTERNET: hall@cs.sfu.ca
Centre for Systems Science | Fax   (604) 291-4951 | BITNET: hall%cs.sfu.ca@
Simon Fraser University    | 			  |          relay.cdnnet.ca
Burnaby, B.C.  V5A 1S6     |       
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:54:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.103756.3078@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>
>The NHL was formed with an all-eastern Canadian make-up:  Mon.Canadiens,
>Tor.Arenas (later St Pats, later Leafs), Mon.Wanderers (rink burnt down,
>team folded in first year) and Ott.Senators.  Quebec has a team (the
>Bulldogs), but they decided not to operate in the first season.  Their
>players were distributed around the league.  The Bulldogs came back to life
>the next year and the players came back too.  
>
>The Quebec franchise later moved to Hamilton before folding a few years
>later after a player strike.  In 1924-25, US teams were added as well as
>the Mon.Maroons who lasted about 15 years.  The Senators bit the dust 
>in 1931.  The Habs and the Arenas/St.Pats/Leafs survive to this day.
>
>After the demise of the Maroons, there were no new Canadian franchises
>until Vancouver in 1970.

	I think the rest of the Canadian franchises appeared as follows:

	Edmonton came from the defunct WHL
	Quebec came from the WHL (?)
	Calgary acquired the Atlanta Flames
	Ottawa revived the Senators this year
	And Hamilton is still waiting after trying for the umpteeth 
	time to get i's own franchise.....

	Is that it?  Only seven Canadian hockey teams?

			....Jose


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
".sig quotes are silly"|Kenneth C. Moyle          kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca 
 - Kenneth C. Moyle    |Department of Biochemistry     MOYLEK@MCMASTER.BITNET 
                       |McMaster University       ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!kenm 
Newsgroups: can.general
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 12:57:42 GMT

lavackm@wl.aecl.ca writes:

>With all this talk on the referendum, I was wondering if the Montreal Canadiens
>and the Quebec Nordiques will have to leave the NHL if Quebec separates?

I'm not a hockey fan, but I was wondering why the National Hockey League
already includes two nations.  Or is the border really an "imaginary line"?
Given this, the NHL could encompass many national territories.

Xref: sparky can.general:4909 can.politics:8513 soc.culture.canada:7548
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: An idea for Constitutional Reform
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 05:23:32 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada


At this time, I would like to make some sort of comprimise provided that the
NO side loses!

1)  The Cbarter of Rights and Freedoms be considered as the supreme part of
    the Constitution dropping the Notwithstanding clause.
    And that Quebec's Distinct Society, the Aboriginal, every Canadian, male
    or female be subject to the Charter and that noone be given a priveleged
    status.

2)  We keep the Economic Union and Social Charter.

3)  The Amending formula be accommodating to a Quebec veto.

4)  True Parliament Reform takes place as follows:

    i) The TRUE Spirit of the EEE Senate be adopted

    ii) The House of Commons reflect representation by population in a way
        that does NOT overpower the Senate and that MPs be elected via a
        process of a) proportional representaion  or b) preferential ballot.

 LET'S WORK FOR TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM FOR THE BENEFITS OF ALL CANADIANS.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Canadians: send a clear message to the government!  ON Oct. 26, Abstain
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Bell Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:46:36 GMT

Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: 
: In article <BvEIFw.5Dq@animal.er.bell.ca> alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:
: {stuff deleted}
: >
: >I am amazed at you, an anglo in Quebec not wanting the francophones to have
: >the powers they need. What gives you the right? Do you know better?
: 
: Unless I missed something, at the moment "what gives you the right",
: is Canadian citizenship. Of course, if the accord goes through it will
The amazing powers of Canadian citizenship...
: be much less clear as to how his right to free speech is, or is not,
: restricted by the constitution. 

Where does this end? Are you saying it is correct behaviour to interfere
anywhere you want? Well, I don't like that Arab women must wear veils. Hmm,
a denial of 'basic rights', according to me. Let's vote them out of the
U.N. I don't trust their judgement.

: Part of free speech is that one is not obliged to "know better", it
: includes the right to be mistaken. 

What? I guess your comments prove this.

--
Opinions expressed are my own, and are not necessarily those of Bell,BCE,etc.,
or any corporation, agency or association I may be affiliated with.
  Alex Laney, Independent User Interface Guru, IWS/TRACS Project.
  Addr: animal!bnkc08!alex  (or maybe alex@bnkc08.Bell.Ca)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:21:36 GMT

In article <13138@hans> hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>HoC legislation with a 60% vote in the senate).
>
>By the way, I think you should redo your calculations for how much
>BC would lose if Quebec's population dropped to 20%. With your answer
>you seem to be assuming that all of Quebec's extra seats would be
>taken from BC, which is foolishness. The actual numbers would be more
>like:
>             %Pop    %Seats     %RepbyPop
>Quebec       20      25          125%
>BC           25      23.44        94%
>RestofCanada 55      51.56        94%
>
>And this is a worst case scenario, as it is unlikely that Quebec will
>drop to 20%, and it is even more unlikely that BC will rise to 25%
>(hint: Ontario and Alberta are growing almost as fast now, and will
>likely grow faster than BC after about 2000 when Hong Kong immigration
>slows).

This is NOT the worst case scenario...the representation of BC, Alberta,
and Ontario will be further reduced because the other small provinces
are at 100% of rep. by pop. or significantly above 100% also.

The ratio of 125%/94% gives about a 30% difference in voting power
between a person in BC (or Alberta and Ontario) and Quebec...which
is not insignificant...it means it will take 4 BC'er to equal 3
Quebeckers.

Gerald  
Newsgroups: can.general