HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Does Quebec *want* to stay in Canada> (was Re: RACISM???
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:01:19 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mid Island Ham Network

Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:

> Looking from Vancouver at this question, "Does Quebec want to say", it seems 
> me that the only way to find out is to ask.  I don't mean asking people who
> read this group of messages, or people who write in Le Devoir, or people who
> get interviewed on Radio Canada or the CBC.  I'd say you have to ask everybod
> The answer is spelled R-E-F-E-R-U-N-D-U-M.
> 
> As for what happens if the answer is that Quebec wants to leave (Oui means No
> voulons partir), all that is to be said is that people outside Quebec would
> know that people in Quebec want out.  But I have the greatest faith that the
> well-established chattering industry (one of the few growth industries in
> Canada) would turn its attention to something else.
> 
> Regarding what to do if the answer is Oui, I think that if only because so ma
> people live in Quebec there is no way Quebec can be kept in Canada by force.
> Besides, the shelling of Dubrovnik and the fighting in Sarajevo (and no doubt
> in the surrounding countryside) is hardly an inspiring example of keeping a
> country together by force.
> 
> Desiree Bradley 


Why do you assume that only the people INSIDE Quebec should decide if we 
split up Canada? It's my country too, and all of us will be affected by 
such a move - to our detriment if it occurs.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca (Robert Smits Ladysmith BC)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306))
Subject:  Window Smashing (was Re: FLQ (was Re: French/English status after independence))
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:57:52 GMT

In <SBO.92Jul29142426@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:

>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:25:26 GMT, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) said:
>  > (it) is probably unsafe for a merchant in many areas of
>  > Montreal to willingly violate the sign laws and not expect
>  > violence in the form of graffiti or broken windows.

>Note also that, for example, a small company making weird
>T-Shirt got their windows smashed. They where displaying a
>shirt with "Quebec's sovereign money where the head of the
>qUEEN was replaced by something else (I don't remember
>what)".

Perhaps we can all agree that smashing windows is, most often, a fairly bad
idea. I think it unlikely that such actions soothe spirits and resolve
differences. (Good at pissing people off, though.)

-Mike.
Xref: sparky can.general:3368 can.politics:5296
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: the new Constitutional Deal
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:23:51 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 759

From article <ph3.711746609@unixg.ubc.ca>, by ph3@unixg.ubc.ca
 Michael Hamilton writes:-

> .... I think it is alright for any culture which feels threatened to
> impose unconstitutional laws on individuals in order that the culture may
> survive. ...

  I wonder if Mr. Hamilton would support native indian's efforts in B.C. 
  to stop logging and hydro projects on their claimed territories? - Land
  being an important part of native indian culture.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| 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.general
Subject: Re: Olympic Musing
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:47:39 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <neilg.712208004@sfu.ca> neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy) writes:
>
> Most of the Canadian athletes actually appeared to be women. But many
>other athletes appeared to be girls. I mean, *really* young girls -
>they were saying ages like 14 and 15 on the commentary.
>
> Is it just me, or does anyone else doubt that a child that age is
>going to handle Olympic stresses all that well? I mean, we all know
>how completely screwed up chronologically mature athletes seem to get.
>But these little kids? (And why did the Canadians tend to be older?)
>
> There oughta be a law...
>
> - Neil K. (n_k_guy@sfu.ca)

Have you heard about teaching swimming to very young children
(I mean under 1 year for example)?  The teacher will not allow
parents to be present because the parents will transfer their 
own stress to children.  The same thing with teen-agers.  They
are at the age when they are not yet feeling all stress that
you or me may feel.  That is, the "negative" stress is probably
weaker (less weak?).

As for Olympic spirit, I am very disappointed to see (again, sigh)
the federal government using the event to promote politics.\
The advertisement is showing all those Olympic athletes and says
how great Canada is.  This is crap and abusing the olympic spirit.
Without Canada, Quebec athletes would say they are representing
Quebec, that's all.  Olympic spirit is supposedly related to the
athlete and the individual (or participating team), not to countries
or political bodies.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.general
From: geoffrey@namao.uucp (Geoffrey Holan)
Subject: Email access to internet
Summary: email access in Mississauga
Keywords: email
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:35:42 GMT

Hi, I am sending this for the following person
please respond directly to him. Thanks

I would like to get email access to the usenet/
internet in the Missassauga area of Ontario.
I work for Anixtor tech support and can
be reached at 416-897-5665
  Vince Mammolti

Xref: sparky can.general:3597 can.politics:5543
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: RACISM???/Access to English schools
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:07:22 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Jul28.214239.12911@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>
>  NO, I did not!
>
>  I chose to come to Quebec. I did not choose to be treated as a "British
>  Ethnic" in a racist, intolerant, economically self-destructive .....
>

A Rome, on fait comme les Romains...

>
>  As Jean Chretien said of Rene Levesque:-
>
>   "Of course, Levesque could never accept anything"
>
>  How could he?
>

Levesque is dead for a few years now.  ANd Quebec is ruled by Liberal Party
which is basically a federalist party.  So, this kind of argument is
of no relevance.

>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.general
From: barsony@bmerh738.bnr.ca (Louis Barsony)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic...", letter to the Globe
Keywords: bad press
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 12:47:02 GMT

I am looking forward to seeing this letter printed in 
the Globe.
When should we see it?
--
Lou Barsony                                            "I've seen the Exorcist  
Bell-Northern Research			               	197 times and it just 
Ottawa_Ontario_Canada                                   keeps getting better!" 
barsony@bnr.ca                                          - Betelgeuse
From: irwin@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Irwin David)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Questionnaire/Survey
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:22:09 GMT
Distribution: qc
Organization: Universite de Montreal



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
			<<Have a Nice Day>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: can.general
From: andy@orchid.bdc.ubc.ca (Andrew Dwelly)
Subject: Re: The National Debt
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: canada
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:31:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.213908.5961@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>  
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.195631.1977@unixg.ubc.ca> andy@orchid.bdc.ubc.ca  
(Andrew Dwelly) writes:
> >
> >Does anyone have accurate, or even estimated figures for the 
> >Canadian national debt, and its rate of increase ? I'd quite
> >like to modify the xdebt program which monitors the US national
> >debt, to horrify Canadians as well.
> >
> 
> The federal debt is about $450 billion dollars and the total
> provincial debt is about $100 billion.
> 
> Gerald

Ouch, that is high - I guess that's American billions (10e9) rather
than British billions (10E12). What's the rate of increase ?

Andy Dwelly
Xref: sparky can.general:3422 rec.crafts.brewing:4085
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: Beer/Ale in Canada (Was Re: Labatt "Draft";Molson "Dry" etc)
From: charlto@ubitrex.mb.ca (Mike Charlton)
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:52:04
Distribution: can
Organization: Ubitrex Corporation, Winnipeg, Canada.
In-reply-to: steven@spxtech.qc.ca's message of 24 Jul 92 14:43:44 GMTLines: 38

The beer situation in Canada is getting a little better, but it still
has a long way to go.  One interesting beer that just came on the
market is Molson's Special.  I don't know if it's available outside
of Manitoba (or maybe it's everywhere and Manitoba is late -- as usual),
but I think the concept is a good one for "industrial" Canadian beer.
Basically it's a 3% "lite" beer that appears to be all malt (it's being
promoted as a premium beer, which usually indicates all malt).  The 
advertising is also somewhat unique for Canadian beer, as they are
stressing how much darker the colour is compared to a normal "lite" beer.
They also emphasize the malt flavour they get from using 3 different kinds
of malt (oohh... <sarcasm>).  Unfortunately I got a 6 pack of the stuff
(in cans because that's all sell in multiples of 6) and every one was
mildly to extremely oxidized (pasturization strikes again!).  There is
a good malt flavour, though.  The hops are almost non-existent, but that may
have has something to do with the oxidation.  Still, I like the idea of
a low gravity all malt beer on the market at competative prices.

  On another note, I once looked into how much money the breweries actually
get from selling their beer.  The general concesus is that the breweries
are all money grubbing goons who will try to scrounge every 1/10 of
a cent they can lay their hands on.  I had to dig through a lot of law
books that I didn't really understand, but the gist of what I read was
that, in Manitoba the tax on beer is 56%.  That is, 56% of the final price
goes to the government (12 of the 56 percent is federal and 44 is
provincial).  On top of that, the liquor commission takes a straight
35% off the top for its cut (all alcohol sales that aren't served on the
premesis in which they were brewed have to go through the liquor
commission).  This means that the brewery gets 9% of the final price for
it's share (and it has to advertise, package, transport and make the
beer).  This information was quite old, and I didn't really understand
all of the stuff, so I might have made some error here.  Still, I have
new understanding for why the mega-breweries make such tasteless beer and
why the micro-brewed beer is so expensive.  I wonder if a straight
tax on beer (ie. 56 cents on a bottle of beer, rather than 56% of the
final price) would allow brewers to make better beer without vastly
inflating the cost....

        Mike
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306))
Subject: Re: the new Constitutional Deal
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:14:14 GMT

In <1992Jul22.132351.12970@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:

>From article <ph3.711746609@unixg.ubc.ca>, by ph3@unixg.ubc.ca
> Michael Hamilton writes:-

>> .... I think it is alright for any culture which feels threatened to
>> impose unconstitutional laws on individuals in order that the culture may
>> survive. ...

>  I wonder if Mr. Hamilton would support native indian's efforts in B.C. 
>  to stop logging and hydro projects on their claimed territories? - Land
>  being an important part of native indian culture.

The Provincial government, by agreeing to and championing native self-
government, and agreeing to a process by which native land claims can be
addressed has pleased native groups (and me). Ovid Mercredi, however, is upset
that Quebec has a problem with the way the First Nations people are treated in
the new deal. (He was quoted in a major Vancouver paper recently; I don't
remember what he said, but it was pretty close to what I just wrote.) Insofar
as logging and hydro projects are concerned, I think that most British
Columbians have come to the conclusion that we cannot keep trading logs, water,
and rocks for white appliances. I think it is just a matter of time before we
stop.

Xref: sparky can.general:3654 can.politics:5580
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Does Quebec *want* to stay in Canada> (was Re: RACISM???
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:50:27 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Looking from Vancouver at this question, "Does Quebec want to say", it seems to
me that the only way to find out is to ask.  I don't mean asking people who
read this group of messages, or people who write in Le Devoir, or people who
get interviewed on Radio Canada or the CBC.  I'd say you have to ask everybody.
The answer is spelled R-E-F-E-R-U-N-D-U-M.

As for what happens if the answer is that Quebec wants to leave (Oui means Nous
voulons partir), all that is to be said is that people outside Quebec would
know that people in Quebec want out.  But I have the greatest faith that the
well-established chattering industry (one of the few growth industries in
Canada) would turn its attention to something else.

Regarding what to do if the answer is Oui, I think that if only because so many
people live in Quebec there is no way Quebec can be kept in Canada by force.
Besides, the shelling of Dubrovnik and the fighting in Sarajevo (and no doubt
in the surrounding countryside) is hardly an inspiring example of keeping a
country together by force.

Desiree Bradley 
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Photography (was Re: Gwen Jacobs day--reflections)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:49:15 GMT

In <1992Jul22.222315.2318@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

>More power to him - I've been at the beach and seen women "rolling
>their video cameras" at the men there. Big <yawn> deal. You go about in
>public, others in public may take your photograph. <yawn>

Are you sure?  I thought you needed permission to take people's
photographs.

--
David F. Skoll
Xref: sparky can.general:3501 can.politics:5462
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias)
Subject: Re: Dominion of Canada (was RE: Political power of provinces)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:42:57 GMT


>And that same Constitutional act does not even mention the powers of
>the Prime Minister. It doesn't mean he is not the effective head of
>the country.

Ah, you've raised a very interesting point.  What you say is true.  In
fact most of the power of the PM lies in his ability to 'control' his
MP's.  If they are not on side, he is basically dead in the water.

Edgar
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: pete@aix1.uottawa.ca (Peter Hickey)
Subject: Does Quebec *want* to stay in Canada> (was Re: RACISM???...)
Organization: Computing & Comm. Services, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 13:45:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.234323.11712@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias) writes:
>
>>It is not the Quebecois that want to stay in Canada, it is Canada that
>>want Quebecois not to leave.  It is then to Canada to make compromises.
> 
>Denis, you crack me up :-).  You keep making outlandish statements like
>these and no one is going to take you seriously any more!  If you actually
>*believe* this, I think we should collectively declare you a
>'distinct society'...
>

In *my* experience, Denis has hit the nail on the head.  I don't think
it is an outlandish statement.

English Canada views Quebec as wanting to grab power, while the Quebec
seems to have no real *desire* to be a part of Canada. It does explain
a lot.  Two sides arguing about the same 'goal', but for different
reasons.

This, however, is only my experience in my neighborhood.  What do
I know anyway, I'm not even Canadian.  I'm an American living in
Hull, QC.  Maybe that means I can see things more objectively since
I haven't had my 'vision of Canada' taught to me by others.  I got it
from experience.  

-Pete
not.

-- 
Pete Hickey               | Pete@mudhead.uottawa.CA | "If a vegetarian eats
Communication Services    |   or (if desperate)     |  vegatables, then what
University of Ottawa      | petehic@uottawa.bitnet  |  does a humanitarian
Ottawa,Ont. Canada K1N 6N5|  (613) 564-7646         |  eat?"
Xref: sparky can.general:3365 can.politics:5290
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: the new Constitutional Deal
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:44:02 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2038

From article <ph3.711746609@unixg.ubc.ca>, by ph3@unixg.ubc.ca
 Michael Hamilton writes:-

> ... I think it is alright for any culture which feels threatened to
> impose unconstitutional laws on individuals in order that the culture may
> survive. ...

  A Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution seems to be the
  best way to protect individual rights.

  Alan Borovoy of the C.C.L.A., however, asserts that the notwithstanding
  clause has accidently returned utimate legislative authority to the
  elected representatives of the people. I.E. removed the utimate authority
  from the non-elected Supreme Court Bench.

  I am largely in agreement with most of what I have read in Mr. Borovoy's
  books. I can not accept that his argument for a notwithstanding clause is
  of greater value then the protection of individual rights in the Charter.

  The notwithstanding clause, and possibly the Distinct Society clause (I
  don't know), gives that legislative power back to the very authorities
  against which the Charter was meant to protect individual rights and
  freedoms.

  I am not against a Distinct Society clause in principle. It is a statement
  of obvious fact (like a founding nations definition that includes native
  indians).

  I am against any "clause" that allows any level of government to override
  Charter protections.

  I don't like Charter provisions being bargained on the same table as
  constitution clauses either. Perhaps the Charter should be taken out of
  the hands of elected governments altogether. How about requiring Charters
  and Charter ammendments to be approved by the U.N., for example? (The U.N.
  Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms is a good starting point!)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.general:3665 can.politics:5586
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:48:02 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Jul29.161936.17199@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> power@random.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>
>Looked at from this perspective, this country is in trouble - we are not
>even discussing the same issues! 

If you look at my postings a few month old, I said something like that :
there is no solution except secession of Quebec.  Maybe another solution
is to accompany this with a shared common commercial space, but with
Quebec having full power or deciding what power to give away (instead
of current Ottawa choice).  This is Souverainete-Association : Quebec
keeps her way of doing things and Canada do the same.

First name of PQ was actually Mouvement Souverainete-Association and this
form of government is probably enough to accomodate both Quebec (Quebec
gets full powers and is no more considered as a child facing parents ;
this would be also feeling of maturity, etc.) and CSQ (no special power for
Quebec in the same political space of Canada while keeping the existing
commercial/economics space).

>Brian Power			e-mail:	power@random.ucs.mun.ca
>Memorial University	
>St. John's, Newfoundland


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.general
From: Mother Nature <gaea@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:46:29 GMT

charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren) writes:
>howard@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Howard Lem) writes:
>[...description of road hazards...]
>
>#As a step in that direction, the government (Municaipal | Provincial) should 
>#license ALL bicycles.  The fee need not be large, just enough to cover
>
>Am I showing my age or what? When I was a kid, not sooo long ago, I always
>had a licence for my bicycle. It only cost a few bucks. I don't ever
>remember being checked for a valid licence, but the principle existed
>nonetheless. (This was in Guelph, by the way.)

We don't have bicycle licences here in Toronto, but I'd be very willing to pay
a licensing fee, especially if they'd fix the roads up. At least they're
starting, many of the sewers are now turned sideways so bike wheels can't get
caught in them.

Gaea
gaea@zooid.guild.org


Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics