HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:26:05 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>You don't need to change the constitution to address those problems.
>
>The federal government can unilaterally withdraw from areas of
>provincial jurisdiction where it is not wanted...and use it's
>spending power more judiciously.  It can consult more before
>taking actions precipitously which affect provinces.

This would not satisfy anyone concerned about those issues. People
would say "well, I like the way *this* government is acting, but
there's nothing to prevent *future* governments from instituting
a National Energy Program against Alberta's wishes, or cutting off
funding previously promised under the Canada Assistance Plan."

>The federal government can pass a law to allow for the election
>of Senators [...]

No, Gerald, it can't. This would require resolutions of the House of
Commons and 7 provincial legislatures representing at least half the
population.

>And the federal and provincial governments can begin negotiating
>and legislating self-government for aboriginals, entrenching
>the laws and the agreements at some future date.  And I would
>argue, that this would be infinitely superior for aboriginals,
>since they will likely have to spend less time in court.

Shouldn't we let aboriginals decide what would be "superior for
aboriginals"?

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:44:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.000017.3468@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <BvE9wJ.FFF@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>>     Sure... as soon as you explain to me how the present Indian
>>>Act and reserve system is different from apartheid.
>>
>>Oh, I get it.  If you have apartheid now, it's OK to enshrine it in
>>the constitution.  Well that certainly makes sense!
>
>     Paul, you really must get into the habit of reading my
>articles past the first paragraph.  What do you propose to
>replace the current relationship of the Native peoples to the
>federal government?

(I do read the whole article.  It's just I choose to respond to
only certain portions.  That is my right.)

The ONLY thing I would propose is IF the aboriginals so desire, they
may become ordinary citizens of Canada.  Other than that, well I guess
we will continue with the various treaties, etc.  I would not force
them to be citizens in the same sence that you and I are; but that or
the present system is all I would present.
From: irwin@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Irwin David)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Questionnaire/Survey
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:07:56 GMT
Distribution: qc
Organization: Universite de Montreal


					Montreal, Fall 1992.

To whom it may concern,

In order to complete a Ph.D. dissertation in the field of political science 
I must verify a certain number of propositions. To do so, I must gather data.
To gather data I must ask people to fill a questionnaire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If yourself or your parents were born in a country other than Canada you| 
qualify as a respondent. You must also be a resident of the province 
of Quebec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to receive a copy of the questionnaire or further details, please 
send me a message or provide me with a postal address. You should expect the
questionnaire to arrive via Canada Post within the week. 

P.S. Thank you to those who have already accepted to participate in the
study.

Regards.

David H. Irwin

Please note: this posting should appear only in the Quebec distribution
area. If you can read this posting outside the province of Quebec, please
disregard it. The survey is limited to Quebec residents. Thanx!

David H. Irwin				E-mail: irwin@ere.umontreal.ca
University of Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: "ronald sabourin" <ronald.sabourin@canrem.com>
Subject: banks and the october
Reply-To: "ronald sabourin" <ronald.sabourin@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: can
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:41:22 EST

DT>The bankers themselves will cause more fluctuation in the
DT>markets than the politicial outcome of the referendum itself,
DT>as their speculation will have an instant truthhood in terms of the
DT>effect.  The bank announcements will do more damage than the real
DT>uncertainties that existed prior to this point.  I am judging this
DT>by the fact that in the case of Meech it was only the Prime Minister
DT>and Wilson who forecasted doom.  This time it is the people who
DT>handle your money.  Wonder what is in it for them?  Can they predictably
DT>gain from the types of fluctuations that would be expected as the 26th
DT>approaches and polls are taken?

I second the thoughts expressed. I also wish everyone would start talking
about the deal instead of threatening us with doom and gloom especially
when our politicians (Trudeau included) and bankers have been telling us
for years that the real economic forces that affect the canadian economy
are NOT in Canada.

I am still amazed that most of the talk by the YES side is of the type
vote yes, otherwise WWIII -:) will occur. It the same song chanted during 
the PQ election victory in 1976, the referendum in 1980, the Meech Lake 
Accord,--don't they realize we are getting immune to this kind of talk
and really we are more intelligent than that?? We want the text, we want
facts, tell us how this accord will help do all those other things we
should be doing??

    Ronald
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #10295  Carpe Diem.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:50:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BvCuCC.9BM@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>
>   B.4:
>           A clause should be added to the Constitution stating that the
>   Social and Economic Union does not abrogate or derogate from the
>   Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
>
>Individual liberties remain protected under the Charter. Which rights are you
>concerned about losing?

Well for one - mobility rights. Tradespeople resident in Ontario (or anywhere
except Quebec) are prhibited from paracticing their craft in Quebec.
The Economic "Union" clause which entrenches the right of provinces to make
such regulations will constitutionally protect such injustices.






-- 
i.sinature
Xref: sparky can.politics:7458 can.general:4650
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Early Hallowe'en (was: Where's the $ (?!))
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:15:08 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 586

From article <1992Sep29.162847.14466@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, by golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy):
> 
> How good can an Accord be when the only way to sell it is
> through terror?
> 
> It is going to be a one hell of an October...
> 

Early hallowe'en ?   :-)


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:38:50 GMT

In article <gill.718052796@physics.ubc.ca> gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill) writes:
{stuff removed}
>
>     Actually, what I would like to see from the No sides is not a simple
>rejection (any fool can do that), but a concensus on what minor changes
>would change their vote.  If they feel that the premiers are purely playing
>politics rather than writing a `good' constitution, this seems to be the
>approach they should take.
>
>     Fix it, don't burn it!

A number of the supporters of Yes have made this arguement. It is a
particularly strange one. The Yes side defined the question. They
decided on the either Yes or No framework. There was nothing to
prevent them from having several proposed constitutions up for a vote
at the same time. In the judgement of the political leaders of what is
now the Yes side, having a range of choices was not desirable.
Presumably they felt that it would be too divisive having say 20%
support for each of five proposals. Such a judgement is easy to
understand. However, to then complain that people oppose the only
accord on the ballot, for a variety of reasons does not seem fair.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:01:11 GMT

Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
>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).

As long as the option exists for a province to acquire a power and as long
as increased economic barriers do not result, then this definition of
asymmetrical federalism makes a great deal of sense to me.  It will be
interesting to see if something like this emerges as a valid possibility
should the no side prevail.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:47:11 GMT

In article <BvEIn3.A8E@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: I live in BC. As far as I can see this document proposes to make my
>: province permanently under-represented in the House of Commons and in
>: the Supreme Court. Being a second class citizen is not the worst thing
>: imaginable, but it is distasteful. If I can avoid it, I would prefer
>: to do so. The entrenchment of certain special interests that happened
>: to be in the right place at the right time is also distressing.
>
>This document proposes that, after the 1996 census, no matter what your
>population, you will have no worse than 95% of the seats you deserve. Find
>that good a deal elsewhere, I ask you.

So the argument is that having 95% of what, one might have considered
my rights of citizenship, is the best that I can do. Interesting. This
may be true. Is this supposed to make it attractive to me?

>
>The NEP would come under the protection of natural resources as a provincial
>domain. Alberta could block this on these grounds.

This was a major issue during the NEP. They did not succeed then. I
did not see anything in the accord to suggest that they would have
more success now. Which clause did I miss? Or misunderstand?

>Which special interest groups are you against? Gender right? Native rights?
>Minorities? I think entrenching these rights IS a reflection of the most
>noble elements of modern Canadian thinking.

I guess you have more trust in the meaning of an * than I do. Although
I doubt that they will win their court case, I have a great deal of 
sympathy for the aboriginal women's group's concerns.
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:39:58 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep30.212542.1266@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>In article <28SEP92.16933760.0061@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.184122.6334@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>>
>>>BC, Alberta etc. were seperate enitities when they *negotiated* entry into
>>>Canada.
>>>
>>BC yes, Alberta no.  The prairie provinces were not separate entities
>>which negotiated entry into Canada.  They were created by Ottawa
>>out of land which it bought from the Hudson's Bay Co. in 1870.
>
>The borders of the time were different, but then so were most other
>provincial borders, before the provinces chose to join. There were
>already people in BC running things before BC became a province. Ottawa
>didn't just create a province out of nothing, and create a government.
>
>You should review some of the agreements: Ottawa made certain promises
>to BC so BC would join. If BC didn't negotiate entry into Canada, then
>why did Ottawa bother making those commitments?
>>
You should read my postings more carefully before replying.  I
don't deny that BC negotiated entry into Canada.  I *do* deny
that Alberta and Saskatchewan did so.  Ottawa *did* create them.
The case of Manitoba is a little more ambiguous, because of the
existence of Riel's provisional government in 1870, but roughly
speaking, it too can be seen as a creation of the feds.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Xref: sparky can.politics:7487 soc.culture.canada:6990
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:43:18 GMT

Jamie Andrews (jamie@cs.sfu.ca) wrote:
>In article <Bv9M75.K4v@news.cso.uiuc.edu> epritcha@s.psych.uiuc.edu (EVAN pritchard) writes:
>>From the looks of this, BC people are really against this the
>>referendum.  Moreover, more of them have made up their minds about it.
>>Why is this?  
>
>     Because the electorate in BC is BRAINLESS.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^
and

>before the Brainless BC Electorate finally decided to get rid of
            ^^^^^^^^^
and, again

>overturned by subsequent provincial governments!), the BC
>electorate has re-asserted its archetypal BRAINLESSNESS and
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There goes Jamie once again trying to win friends and influence people
:-) Seems like a good beer garden topic to me.

>     I bet these are the same people who are going to call
>Presto Manning's 1-800 number to say "I voted No in the
>Referendum but I still want to vote Yes to Quebec."

It is not reasonable to expect people to "hold their noses and vote yes" to
a deal in which they do not believe because Quebec wants said deal. (I know
Dave Barret will disagree) Give the BC electorate a deal that they can feel
good about, a deal that seems fair and just, and they will vote yes.  Give
them a piece of crap and they will vote no.

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

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:39:27 GMT

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.

     If you believe that the Senate is a good institution to have, give it 
some real power and remove that power from the provincial premiers.  Place the
real power in Parliament, not in the legislatures.   (BTW, can you tell I'm a
federalist?? <G> )     

--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile             gill@physics.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
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 19:02:38 GMT

Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: >
: >This document proposes that, after the 1996 census, no matter what your
: >population, you will have no worse than 95% of the seats you deserve. Find
: >that good a deal elsewhere, I ask you.
: 
: So the argument is that having 95% of what, one might have considered
: my rights of citizenship, is the best that I can do. Interesting. This
: may be true. Is this supposed to make it attractive to me?

It says "no less than". Many ridings do not have that now. Most of these
ridings are not in BC. There is also provision for a permanent formula to
ensure that it stays close to ideal rep-by-pop regardless of demographic
changes.

Lets also face facts that, in our current federal party system, your MPs do
not vote on provincial lines, nor on personal beliefs -- they vote the party
line.

   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
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: BC News and Mail
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:46:49 GMT

In article <Zl1-pCC@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>
>>Quebec doesn't have a right to declare independence!
>>
>Perhaps not, but it does have the power.

No, the natives will be keeping James Bay when they declare independence :-)

-- 
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: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 16:33:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.181003.7632@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>Marxism, suspended the great debate for a century or so, until both
>the Western Enlightenment and tribalism prevailed over Marxism, and
>now turn to do battle with each other again.  This is complicated of
>course by the shrinking of the world, and the arrival of the global
>village.  Separate development or peaceful coexistence and competition
>via cold war of competition as occurred in the ideological war with
>Marxism is no longer possible...this will be an ideological civil war.


I'm not sure if I agree with this or not.

Certainly the Marxist view of nationalism was the constitutional one
and not the tribal one. To that extent, Marxism supported the ideal of
equal rights of all citizens (on paper.)

Where Marxist interpretations and regimes were in gross error was
where constitutional federations were created by coercion rather than 
born by referendum and maintained by democratic choice.

It would be wrong, though, to suggest that the french revolutionary
ideal of citizenship (from Rousseau, etc.) and its battle with 
tribal nationalism (origins in German romanticism after 1789) 
suddenly stopped with Marxism.
Equally, it would be wrong (and dangerous) to suggest that the failure of
the USSR and Yugoslav federations was proof of the need for tribalism,
which is what the secessionists are now claiming. 
Tribalism is a form of barbarism and by definition, is undemocratic.
Tribal and constitutional nationalism are irreconcilably contradictory.

We must choose one or the other. The validity or invalidity of Marxism has
little to do with this particular debate.

Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: New social programs if Charlottetown passes
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:23:18 GMT

Mathew B Englander (mathew@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: 
: Why would the federal government want to pay for a program when in some
: provinces the provincial government will get all the credit?

This notion of 'credit' is a strange one. What happened to altruism? What
happened to the federal government governing all of us? If we are prosperous,
do we not give them 'credit'? It seems you place the 'credit' where you want,
regardless of where it belongs. You'll blame the federal government for the
deficit, and then like the Health care it supports, praising the province?


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada