HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Qc, Canada
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:42:40 GMT

In article <schuck.721174910@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:

>>>The only way to treat a seceding Province is to cut off all funds
>>>flowing from Ottawa and the Provinces immediately.
>>>
>>>At no time must Ottawa or any other province subsidize a secessionist
>>>Province. Once a vote on Secession is announced or a secessionist
>>>Party is elected with a mandate to secede, all monies flowing into the
>>>secessionist province must be cut off until the secessionist province
>>>votes not to secede, or votes out of Power the secessionist government.
>
>>That would be illegal and/or unfair.  
>
>Illegal? So is secession.
>Unfair? So what?

How stimulating to live in such a friendly country !
"We love you!! We want to keep you!!" 
Sounds like a husband trying to keep his wife from
divorcing, saying he loves her but that he's gonna kill
her if she leaves. Nice family life...

>>  An aggressive
>>move against a secessionist provincial government would be a
>>declaration of war that could not possibly produce a good result.
>
>If such a move is not taken the federal government would and could not
>play a role in the nations business. 
>
>>>All trade with a secessionist Province must also be cut off [...]
>>>All MP's from a secessionist province must be removed from office [...]
>>>All Supreme Court Judges from a secessionist province must be removed [...]
>>>All Senators from a secessionist Province must be removed from office.
>>>All citizens of a secessionist Province must be removed from [posts...]

May I remind you that a secessionist government has already been elected
in 1976 ? Would you suggest that these measures sould have been put
into effect some 15 years ago ? How would it have served Canada?

>>>Finally, the terms of secession must be negotiated by a staff of
>>>professional negotiators with no record of working or living in the
>>>secessionist province, and their mandate must be ruthlessness.
>
>>Obviously, ROC would have to elect leaders not associated with Quebec.
>>I do not agree that they should be ruthless.
>
>If we are not ruthless, Canada will not survive.

Well well, what a strong country... About time we get our asses out of
this one before it collapses.

>-- 
>============================================================================
>"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
>============================================================================

and bigger brains ???


Jean-Remi Duquet
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:24:00 GMT

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

>In article <schuck.721424426@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>   rcano@bnr.ca (Bob Cano) writes:

>   >What APEC (and some others) forget, is that in a divorce between
>   >Canada and Quebec, Quebec with ~25% of the population of Canada
>   >would be entitled to 25% of the assets (including land) of Canada
>   >and 25% of the debt. 

>   I'm a firm believer in the equality of provinces when discussing
>   ownership of Canada.

>   Quebec is 1/10th of the provinces, and as such entitled to 10% of the
>   assets.

>For your model to hold, each province would be required to pay 10% of
>the federal tax base.  I'm sure you wouldn't want BC to pay twice as
>much tax per capita as Quebec.

As long as the federal spending was along similar lines. :)

>   When it comes to division of the national debt only, I believe in the
>   'two nation theory' and Quebec is entitled to 50% of the national
>   debt. :)

>   Those at least should be the opening bargaining positions for Canada.

>My, you are ruthless.  Obviously you are lacking that Canadian
>characteristic known as "fairness".

Why did you leave out the only Quebec bargaining position I know
about, the 18% from one of the post-meech reports in Quebec.

If you have other 'documented' positions from Quebec I'd like to hear
them.

What does fairness have to do about opening bargaining positions?

Obviously you want english-Canada to have a bargaining position that
is generous to Quebec.

Who gurantees Quebecs opening bargaining position would be as generous?

When you are talking about distributing 425 billion in debt,
and trillions? in assets, a tough opening bargaining position is
necessary.

Obviously you are lacking in the characteristic known as "brains" if
you think Canada should open up the bargaining with an overly generous
first 'offer'.


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
From: riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:56:18 GMT


Gerald Olchowy writes:
>Just goes to show you that even The Economist can be wrong some times!
>Their reporter obviously has too many establishment friends...

Why do you start your posting by criticising the journalist
instead of what he or she writes?

>the NO vote cleared up the bog...not made it worse.
I don't know if that's true, but I won't disagree.
Many NO voters claimed that a NO vote would not entail a price to pay,
or that the YES camp was only scare-mongering about possible results of a NO.
"The Economist" seems to think that the results are very negative.
They warned about this in their "Survey of Canada" in 1989.

Some posters on this network (I don't think this included you Gerald)
even claimed that the real reason why Canadian bankers were campaigning
for a yes had nothing to do with their concerns for the country's economy.
Those posters prefered that self-serving explanation instead of admitting the
economic common-sense of the stability that all bankers always seek out.

>>"The disaffection is nationwide, and any attempt to reduce it in one
>>place is certain to increase it elsewhere."
>The disaffection in Canada is undoubtedly less than in the US, Britain,
>France, Germany, or Italy.

This is vague. I don't happen to believe that it is at all the case for
the US, Britain and France, nor that it is "less" than in Germany or Italy.
But this topic is completely unquantifiable.
Even if what you say is true, so what? Canada is in a bad spot.

>>"In their current morass, with the eventual break-up of the country looking
>>more probable than ever, Quebeckers are likely to see more jobs,
>>people and investment go elsewhere; and other Canadians are likely to
>>go on watching their young drift south and their economy suffer from
>>paludinous uncertainty. This week's No will have echoes for years."
>The echoes will be have mostly positive reverberations, because
>the clear unambiguous decision made on October 26 means we have chosen
>a particular fork in the road...and the better one at that.
>A Yes vote would have meant we would have chosen the fork that looped
>back upon this very same intersection.  The patriation era is over...
>the future can now unfold as it should.

I wish I saw as much reason for optimism as you Gerald.
In most of the rest of the world, people are happy when
they have food in their stomachs and no bullets flying by.
In Canada, some people want to separate because of oppressive time zones,
and others want to separate because of oppressive postal codes.
Are these the brave citizens that will unfold the nation's future as you say?
Hopefully they are not representative, but the fact remains that we have the
same population but ten times more elected representatives than California.
Our brave representatives tend to listen to these
problems-in-paradise people to the detriment of those they represent.

Marc Riese
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: BC News and Mail
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:37:48 GMT

In article <schuck.721077160@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>

>If you really think Canadians would accept continuing *any* of the
>perks Quebec gets now -- you are as out of touch with reality as the
>eiltes were on the YES side. It won't happen.

It is highly unlikely that Quebec would qualify for a triple A bond rating. 
Their past economic performance would indicate that they are a fairly poor 
risk. So the cost of assuming their portion of the national debt will be 
high.

On the other hand after a (hopefully) short period to stabilize the rest
of Canada will do very well. We have proved that even with the drain of 
equilization payments we do well. Keeping those payments to help pay off
our portion of the national debt will help us maintain or improve our bond 
ratings and help us decrease or interest payments. Pretty good deal.

I'm not for Quebec leaving. But if they want to go I won't stand in their
way.

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.bc.ca> ....................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:53:21 GMT

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>In article <schuck.721416339@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>If you read the news today you will see that the US is prepared to
>>start a trade war with all of Europe to stop subsidies. Quebec's
>>economy is subsidy based and the US would be very, very tough.

>Of course... I guess this is not an overstatement. :-)
>Of course, the american are so naive that they don't see that Quebec
>is "subsidy based" because it is only a province. 

The subsidies are hidden better, but if the US finds them they will
retaliate.

>Of course, if it
>became a country the americans would see the light. Of course, the
>canadian governement and the other provincial governement don't give
>subsidies.

The Americans have been trying to add big tariffs on BC lumber because
they claim out stumpage rates are subsidies to the forest companies.

Whether or not the US is right, at least under the FTA there is an
appeal process. 

If Quebec secedes and is not covered by the FTA, the claim of
subsidies does *not* have to be substantiated because there is no
appeal process, except to the US Commerce Dept, and they usually side
with the US.

Pork producers in Canada had the same problem, but the joint appeal
committee under the FTA sided with Canada.

The US can claim subusidies exist on all sorts of goods , but because
of the FTA, they have to be substantiated.
-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: leei@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (Lee Iverson)
Subject: Re: Canada and Quebec (was: REFERENDUM '92)
Organization: McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 15:18:03 GMT

Thomas Jelonek (thomas@McRCIM.McGill.EDU) wrote:
: 
: One of the best arguments for modern
: democracy as a political system is the seeming inability for two democracies
: to go to war.  

This has got to be the most pervasive fallacy of poli-sci dabblers
(and American political pundits).  Consider that the history of
pervasive democracy (a world where two democracies might actually face
the possibility of war!) is fairly recent, at most the last two
hundred years.  And yet we have some huge and bloody examples of
contradictions to this ``truth'' in the War of 1812, some of the
Napoleonic Wars (e.g. remember Napoleon was initially elected), the
American Civil War and the Second World War.  Hardly an inability.
At the moment we have couple of examples of democratically elected
governments at war in Bosnia for example.

The statement that democracies do not go to war with each other is
patently false.  It also suggests that in any war between a democratic
government and a non-democratic one that the non-democratic one must
have *caused* it somehow (after all if they were only democratic...),
another clearly false notion.

--

Lee Iverson			McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines
leei@mcrcim.mcgill.edu		Computer Vision and Robotics Lab
				McGill University, Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Canada without Quebec
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:37:52 GMT

In article <BxJ78F.30G@mach1.wlu.ca> scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U) writes:
>It angers me to hear lots of people saying that we should let Quebec go...
>I read somewhere that if Quebec separated, we could kiss our G7 membership
>and other important posts goodbye, because we would become too small.

That works both ways.  If the politicians in Quebec feel that their sacred
francophone way of life is on the verge of extintion and that they feel
the G7 membership can take a back seat, then what does that say about them?

They're the ones that are (and have been for years) belly-aching to separate,
so blame them.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Subject: Senate Interrogation
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:10:19 GMT

I've just heard an exchange on As It Happens between Brian McKenna, who
helped produce the docmentary The Valour and the Horror, and a member of the
Senate. The Senator's line of questioning was 100-proof McCarthyism of the
most shameful sort, and I am furious that I didn't catch the wretch's name.

Can someone please advise me of the name of this tax-funded son of a bitch. I
have a bone to pick with him.

Crawford Kilian
Usenet: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca
Internet: ckilian@first.etc.bc.ca

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Schuck vs. Canada
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:01:43 GMT
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


Can someone else join Bruce Schuck's side?  I'm sure he's getting
pretty tired trying to rebut ALL of us.
--
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
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:39:01 GMT
Distribution: can
	<schuck.721165680@sfu.ca> <LABACH.92Nov9083820@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
	<92316.135417SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <schuck.721521140@sfu.ca>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <schuck.721521140@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce
Jonathan Schuck) writes: 
   The G & M has about 20 pages in it's News section of the 'National'
   edition. Of those 20 pages, about half is ad space. That leaves 10
   pages. Of those 10 pages, 1 page is devoted to letters to the editor,
   where people can respond, where they applaud or chastise the views of
   columnists and editorialist and news stories.

   Thats 10% of the news pages dedicated every day it publishes.

Since they bill themselves as Canada's business newspaper, I think it's
inaccurate to leave out their business section in your page totals.
...
   The CBC Ombudsman report has come out many months after the show was
   broadcast, unlike a letter to the G & M which would show up within
   days.

Of course, the Ombudsman had to study the issue, whereas the G & M has
no obligation, and probably little interest, in examining the veracity
of the letters they receive.  The two situations are completely
different and only your apparent contempt for the CBC is offered as
evidence that they are similar.  Like the senators, I fear that you are
using this issue to bash the NFB and CBC, with no real concern as to the
truth of the documentary.

I did find that some overstatement occurred in the V & H, but to be
honest, if you had actual film footage of "Bomber" Harris sodomizing
choirboys, our chums in the Senate would say it's a plot to defame the
memory of a great man.  They've no interest in the truth.  Those pompous
old farts talk a lot about the freedoms they fought for, but they
certainly don't have much time for free speech, especially if it show
that their sainted heroes were (gasp!) only humans, like the rest of us.

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"To survive you often have to fight, and to fight you have to dirty
 yourself.  War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil.  Those who
 take the sword perish by the sword, and those who don't take the sword
 perish by smelly diseases."
 - George Orwell
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:09:30 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.223504.29331@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>I dunno, but it seems odd to hold it against Quebecers should they decide
>that they do not want to be part of Canada anymore. Entities come together
>to form units because they believe that it is mutually beneficial to do so.
>When one entity decides that it is no longer receiving a benefit then it is
>only logical that it would (and should!) leave. Hopefully, it will not come
>to that with Quebec and Canada, but should it, CHQ should accept it and
>move on - recriminating would be a waste of time and energy.
>-- 
>Jim Robinson

  Why is it that Quebec or any other group has to leave Canada before we
become lovey-dovey sensible and start dealing with them in mutually
beneficial ways?

  Why can't we accept social and cultural accommodations short of what  
a full split would entail, before we start talking about how to handle
the nitty gritty of how to live side by side on the same continental
mass?

  Inquiring minds want to know :-?
---- 
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: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:06:44 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>In article <92316.135417SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>>Whoever took their complaint to the ombudsman took their case to the
>>right place, and got the right result; the CBC will not show the series
>>again until and unless the producers correct their errors. The senators,
>>on the other hand, should not take this as any kind of vindication;
>>it merely shows that not only did they have no right to try to
>>dictate Canadian history, they had no reason to do so, either.
>>
>
>What errors?

I'll second that. We keep hearing about errors, but as of yet nobody (and I
have been looking in the newspapers) has stated what they are; makes it
difficult to form an opinion.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Plan B
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 23:57:22 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>
>The proper response for BC to Quebecs separation -- if Quebec MP's,
>PM , Senators, senior civil servants etc are not removed from office
>-- is to separate unilaterally and immediately. It would be stupid to stay.
>
If the BC government adopts this position, then by your reasoning it should
immediately be kicked out of Confederation, and all its residents denied
their Canadian citizenship.

That was the gist of your original post -- that the province would not
have to _declare_ independence, it would only have to have it as its
policy.  What you have described here is a separatist policy, so it
qualifies.

...mark young
Xref: sparky can.politics:9533 soc.culture.canada:8429
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Voting Systems
Date: 10 Nov 1992 00:46:33 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>>[there is a theorem, proved three decades ago by K. Arrow, that all
>>voting systems violate one of these five axioms]
>>1. There should not be a dictatorship (i.e., the choice cannot simply be
>>	that of one individual; other voters must be able, somehow,
>>	to influence it)
>>2. A candidate should not be hurt by an increase in support
>>3. A shift from one candidate to a second should not hurt a third candidate
>>	in favour of a fourth candidate
>>4. There should be at least three candidates, and voters should not
>>	be restricted in their choices among ranking these candidates
>>5. A system that would choose one candidate over a second, and that second
>>	candidate over a third, should also choose the first candidate
>>	over the third.
>>
>>Arrow's theorem showed that under any voting system, one of these axioms
>>is violated.
>
>(btw,  4. might be crucial to his proof, but I don't see why we have to 
>abide by it. At least one candidate, is all that must be required)

A voting system that limited the number of candidates to two would
not violate any of axioms 1, 2, 3, or 5: every voter votes for one
of them, and whichever gets a majority wins. But the problem is, who
decides, and how, *which* two candidates get to run?

>1. A voter can only vote for one person, no prioritizing
>2. The candidate is elected if he gets at least one vote.
>3. The candidate is actually a delegate, so in parliament, he or she
>   represents as many votes as they received.
>4. The delegate can only apply his votes in one way in any parliament
>   vote (he can't split them into different factions). I don't think
>   this should need spelling out, but I did anyway.
>5. It probably doesn't matter how ridings are divided, since each vote
>   the delegate/candidate carries represents one person. But for
>   sake of argument, let's say ridings are divided into equal population
>   sizes, and a candidate can only run in one riding.

You're right, under Arrow's theorem this is not considered a voting
system. He gives a precise, mathematical definition of what he means
by a system of social choice (including voting systems). Essentially
a voting system will take each individual's ranking of various candidates
and combine them into a "collective" ranking of the candidates. (Note:
in this sense "ranking" *may* include ties.)

The problem with the above system is, who runs the show? It's fine to
say we can have a huge assembly of "delegates" whose votes are
weighted according to their support in the election, but who is it
that gets to decide *what* gets voted on? If you think about it,
that question is just as important as who gets to vote.

Mathew Englander.































Newsgroups: can.politics