HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Stephane et les noms...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 20:23:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.044246.11638@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>In article <1992Apr04.055926.5586@bmerh2.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>Bon, moi, j'ai deux prenoms - Rheal Joseph.  Mon frere a aussi
>>Joseph comme deuxieme prenom, et mes deux soeurs portent Marie.
>
>Es-tu sur que tu ne confonds pas avec l'extrait de bapteme???
>
>Sur mon extrait de bapteme, je suis inscrit au nom de "Joseph Gaston Sylvain".
>Joseph, c'est le nom du pere de Jesus Christ, Gaston, c'est le nom de
>mon parrain. (coutume franco-catholique, je suppose)
>Pour les femmes, ca serait "Marie nom_de_la_marraine nom_legal".
>
>Mais mon nom legal, c'est "Sylvain"...
>
>En tous cas, le fait d'etre seulement 10% en Ontario doit influencer sur
>les coutumes...

Ma mere s'est assuree que les noms legaux etaient les memes que sur le
baptistaire - au point que quand elle s'est apercue que la cadette
avait comme nom legal Noella seulement, elle a fait changer ce nom a
Noella Marie (en utilisant le certificat de bapteme comme preuve).
Alors, ma carte d'assurance sociale, mon permis de conduire, etc,
portent tous Rheal Joseph ou Rheal J.  Et notons que ma mere etait pure
francophone - elle ne parlait pas un mot d'anglais a ma naissance.  Si
elle a insiste sur les Joseph et Marie dans nos noms legaux, c'est en
bonne catholique, pas par influence de la majorite anglophone.

Mais je crois que ce que disait Denis, c'est que les Canadiens-Francais
peuvent porter plusieurs noms, mais ils n'en utilisent qu'un seul.
Et en effet, dans ma vie de tous les jours, je suis juste Rheal.

J'ai quand meme eut un prof, un Quebecois catholique de la vieille
ecole, qui portait avec fierte Joseph Alexandre Raphael Fauche de
St. Maurice (et plus brievement, Raphael St. Maurice).  Ses ancetres
portaient Fauche comme patronyme, mais comme celui-ci etait trop
commun, ils ont ajoute le St. Maurice pour se distinguer un peu.
(Ca, c'est le genre de detail que doit souvent rencontrer Denis
dans sa genealogie...)  Ce que je ne sais pas, c'est comment ca se
fait que je me souvienne de tous ces prenoms, 20 ans plus tard...

     ,          ,
Le Rhealiste (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Recherches Bell-Northern
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
Mon employeur ne controle pas mes opinions. |  (613) 763-4266
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:33:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.204533.25148@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>>
>>>Barring some major miracle, I believe that British Columbians will reject
>>>outright any constitutional change that does not include the EEE senate,
>>>or which grants special powers to any province. Any politician who
>>>stood up to urge another position would be committing political suicide.
>>>Perhaps it is the same in Alberta.
>>>
>>I hate to cloud the debate with facts ... but  if memory serves ....
>>
>>Last week the Committee of the B.C. Legislature studying constitutional matters
>>issued a report that DID NOT recommend a EEE Senate.  Late last week Mr. Sihota
>>the B.C. Minister responsible for constitutional matters announced the position
>> that the Government of B.C. with respect to constitutional reform.  So much
>>for the consensus among residents of B.C. on the merits of a EEE Senate.
>>
>>If my memory does not serve please correct ...
>
>I believe that is all more or less true except the conclusion. The
>residents of BC and the government of BC are 2 distinct entities. The
>residents of BC have the last say because we get to vote on ratification.
>The government of BC's role is merely to help shape what we, the residents,
>vote on. The recommendations of a government committee do not necessarily
>reflect the views of the residents.
>
>As well, I remember a news clip that said that the government was caught
>off guard by the number of submissions favouring a EEE senate. This caused
>the government to modify its position and put forward a recommendation for
>an equitable senate whereby BC and the NWT, combined, would be considered a
>region and have the same number of senators as either Ontario or Quebec,
>each of which would be a region. Under this plan Alberta, Sask, Manitoba,
>and I think, Yukon, would be considered another region. (I can imagine what
>Alberta thinks about that!).
>
>Personally, I suspect that the government is only making a token gesture
>towards a revamped Senate since it has always been NDP policy to abolish
>this institution, and considering their statement that if a reasonable
>alternative cannot be found they would favour abolishing it altogether.
>

One would expect BC, Ontario, and Quebec to be against an equal Senate
since they would all lose representation...Alberta neither gains nor
loses in an equal Senate, the small provinces gain.  When Alberta is
proposing the third E, equal, it is proposing something from which
it gains nothing for itself...something which goes almost totally
unrecognized in the constitutional debate...something which can 
hardly be said of Ontario and Quebec.

Gerald
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:32:34 GMT
	<WARKENT.92Apr13112149@ltisun9.epfl.ch>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada

In article <WARKENT.92Apr13112149@ltisun9.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

   In article <SBO.92Apr12121903@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) wrote:
   > You're in for a tough break Peter. I've seen support for the queen even by
   > the so called moderate in can.politics. I agree with you that the queen has
   > no business in Canada, but I suspect that a large segment of the
   > anglophones still worship the queen.

   The Queen has a large amount of personal popularity because she has been
   quite good at doing her job.

You mean smile at the camera ? :-)
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | 
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | (514)340-5950
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: French in france
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:36:18 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr16.140618.19084@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>If Q City french was made of french from all over France, how could
>it be richer than France french, which (I assume!) also came from all
>over France. 

Because in Quebec, the dialects got combined; in France, they stayed
separate and did not influence each other to the same degree.  And
Francois pointed out that the Quebec dialect that resulted did
stabilize and lose some of this richness over the years.

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Aboriginal nationalism?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 14:55:04 GMT

I think Jim has it exactly right.

The question is, what kind of agenda are we witnessing from those
Aboriginal leaders that are in conflict with Jim's points?

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey)
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Distribution: can
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:52:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.224705.21930@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.130754.17153@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>>
>>True, but a lot do, like Britian, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.  
>
>South Africa is not a member of the Commonwealth; it is a republic
>(or if it is a member of the C. it does not have the queen as head of state.)

If I remember correctly from the history books, South Africa declared
itself as a republic to get out of the commonwealth, as it was coming under
pressure to reform its racial laws.  Once it became a republic, apparently
they could have applied to rejoin the commonwealth (of course, they
didn't).  So by this deft manoeuvering, they managed to resign from the
commonwealth before being kicked out or causing an uproar by resigning.

-- 
Mike Godfrey   	           		"Either that wallpaper goes, or I do."
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT      	         	-- allegedly, the last words
migod@turing.toronto.edu			   of Oscar Wilde
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:48:29 GMT
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: mackenzi@Aragorn.McRCIM.McGill.EDU


In article <11448@std-2>, audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

|> >  Quebec is not the same and should, I think, stand apart from the other 9 with 
|> >some form of independence (with a TROC equally independent of Quebec).
|> >  There will never be a united Canada.  What I want is a united TROC.
|> 
|> This is exactly what I think. Maybee there is hope afterall.
|> 
|> However, I doubt that most of TROC share your opinion. 
|> 
|> People don't even acknowledge that Quebec is different from P.E.I.

This just goes to show how people are really on the wrong path in this
constitutional debate.  A constitution IS NOT a set of laws!  It is a set
of guidelines and limits used in making laws.  

Obviously most (or all) provinces are different from each other, whether in
culture, language, special civil code, taxation policies, etc.  However,
when writing a Constitution, culture and other specialities should not be in
the forefront.  The fact that people from Gaspe and people from Edmonton may 
have different lifestyles has nothing to do with their rights as citizens.  
Isn't that the main thrust of a constitution, to clarify rights?  

Some people in this process (I won't mention any names of Ontario premiers)
want to put a social charter into the constitution too.  I feel this is wrong, 
because people do not have a RIGHT to social programs.  Rights and Needs are
NOT the same thing.  Sure, we like our medicare programs and educational 
subsidies, but these should be implemented by laws not by the constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, the only real main issues that we should be considering
are provincial jurisdictions (resources, manpower, senate powers, etc.), Native 
self government, and entrenching individual rights.  The rest have no place in
a constitution.

Paul MacKenzie
McGill University
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Separation?
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.010038.15969@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
	schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:

>>"My Canada includes Quebec."  <-- If you believe it, say it!

>About this campaign of the trucker, in French, it says "Mon Canada comprend 
>le Que'bec". Direct translation in English: could be "My Canada includes
>Quebec"  OR "My Canada understands Quebec".
>The true exact translation should be "Mon Canada INCLUT le Que'bec".
>
>Why the words are different in French?
>Many people think exactly that Canada DOES NOT understand Quebec.
>Coincidence???

I heard a CBC interview with the trucker just before the full campaign
started. I think before the billboards, he tried to get as many
signatures on a "letter" to Quebec to demonstrate that people in English
Canada did care.

I recall that he said the choice of the word "comprend" was deliberately
to allow the double meaning. He intended both.
-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
              If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Subject: Re: O Canada, O Quebec  - reaction
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:56:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.163958.6038@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>Being one of the few people who has apparently bothered to
>read the book, I have difficulty understanding how ANYBODY
>can claim that this book is hate literature or really so
>offensive. 
>
> It is possible that the book *disproportionately* draws attention
>to Quebec's past history of anti-semitism and updates it.
>But that is part of what the book is about. Who says that someone
>is not permitted to draw attention to this issue, in particular a
>Jew, who is interested in the subject? I don't get it. 
>(stuff deleted)
>I read it, enjoyed it and recommend it.
>Richler doesn't play footsie with the chauvinists outside of
>Quebec either. He craps equally on the APEC dinosaurs as he
>does their equivalent in Quebec, his own province.

Precisely. But newspapers talk only about the bad parts of Quebec.
We just see "the head of the coin".

Richler is only guilty of bad timing. He should never have written
such a book in the middle of a constitution crisis...    :)
The book may be used against Quebec by chauvinists...

"If Quebec is so bad, why don't you leave?", Richler was asked once.
He answered that it's STILL the only place he could live, the only
place where he would be comfortable. 

With exerpts from newspapers, people may be led to believe the contrary.

Anyway, in my case, I have more pity than hate or admiration for him.
He seems to love to "brasser de la merde". Maybe he needs attention. ;-)

Sylvain Chamberland
schamber@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
From: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Quebec & the Algonquin - comments from DRUMBEAT
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:46:58 GMT
Reply-To: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Distribution: can
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (IREQ)

In article 92Apr4121308@walhalla.vlsi.polymtl.ca, sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>In article <1992Apr03.083946.1200@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>   [...article of mistreatment of natives in Quebec...]
>
>   The long article concludes with an interesting comment, considering
>   the opinions voiced here often wrt how well Quebec treats its Native
>   population.... 
>
>Not quite accurate. In some article that summarised a study, it was said
>that Quebec treated its Native better than in TROC. The study also said
>that it didn't mean they where well treated. 

	J'ai toujours de la difficulte a lire ce genre d'affirmation. On 
parle continuellement de mauvais traitement envers les autochtones. 
J'aimerais avoir des exemples du genre de mauvais traitement qu'ils leurs
sont infliges. J'aimerais savoir si leur situation est beaucoup plus pire
que le sort des familles mono-parentales, des pauvres des grandes villes, ...
Pourquoi que les autochtones, parce qu'ils sont autochtones, auraient plus
de droit que l'ensemble des demunies de notre societe.

	J'attends de reponses honnetes qui je l'espere ne comparera pas la
situation des autochtones quebecois aux autochtones trociens.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: French in france
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:26:27 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
-What do you mean *again*. This sounds a little suspicious.
-Are you suggesting that there is NOT one big blob and thus
-my credibility is in question?  (Didn't I say that the majority
-of Quebecers in the early migrations came from Paris and Normandy?)

No, I am suggesting that your "big-blob" theory is generally right,
although a bit exagerated (Paris-Normandy-West Coast is not really a
"big blob", and the french was very different in these regions).

-Or are you now agreeing with the main thrust of my argument (re
-French in France in 1789?)

Yes, the "again" was refering to the 50% non-francophone in 1789. I
still don't believe this. I am still convince that most of these 50%
were in fact speaking some sort of french dialect understandable by
the ones who spoke "proper" french (as you say).

-In fact, as I have pointed out before, Quebec french is closer to
-early french (and thus in the view of purists, *MORE* french) than 
-contemporary french in Paris. I dispute that too. 
-
-There is no such thing as MORE-linguistically pure. 
-
-Thus I have to question your expression *RICHEST*  french, after
-you have criticized the idea of *PROPER* french. 
-I had proper in quotes, but you don't seem to have richest in quotes.
-How come?

Because, at that time, it was richer. This was at the very beginning
of the colony. Quebec City was composed of french people from all over
France (although concentrated in a few major area): therefore the
language was "enrichi" of the differents variation (mini-dialects) of
french in France. This situation was unique, since at that time, the
mobility of people (in this case, in France) was not very great.
Of course, after a while, this importation of different french
dialects stopped and the language evolved differently.


-- 
Francois Audet
Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:47:05 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr15.130754.17153@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>
>True, but a lot do, like Britian, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.  I'm not saying
>it's critical, just that is gives us a link, and hopefully reminds us of our past, and why
>we are different than the US.  Besides, how much does it cost us?  Some nice hotels during
>visits?  Big deal.  It's a little like being in NATO, the cost is minimal, but the economic
>benifit is substantial (even though this is not the purpose of NATO or the Commonwealth).



South Africa is not a member of the Commonwealth; it is a republic
(or if it is a member of the C. it does not have the queen as head of state.)
Why do you want to maintain this attachment to the British.
You are Canadian aren't you?
Some ethnic call of the hills or something?


Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jalsop@seachg.uucp (John Alsop)
Subject: Re: Get Ready Canada For The Next Boom
Reply-To: jalsop@seachg.UUCP (John Alsop)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 01:40:42 GMT

In article <92102.013133SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>If you think the only cost of the GST is the amount remitted, try running
>a small business. The paperwork in the GST (record keeping, registration,
>etc.), is a major hassle. That adds to the cost of business, and believe
>me, it gets passed on.

This myth gets posted every few months.  The reality is that the overhead
of the GST is trivial, and is more than compensated for by the fact that
the input tax credit is received on goods used within the business as well
as those for resale.

(And yes, I do run a business).

-- 
John Alsop

Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: 416-542-9484 Fax: 416-542-9479
UUCP: ...!uunet!uunet.ca!seachg!jalsop
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Subject: Re: Stephane et les noms...
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:53:12 GMT

In article <9668@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>Le sujet du 2e prenom a ete aborde sur soc.roots (genealogie).
>Il semble que la pratique soit typiquement americaine dans son origine.
>
>Alors qu'au Quebec les gens changeaient de nom de famille pour se
>distinguer des autres (mon ancetre s'appelait Andre Jarret, sieur
>de Beauregard, et pendant 200 ans, de nombreux descendants se sont
>appeles Jarret dit Beauregard, alors que certains ont choisi Vincent
>qui est le prenom d'un fils d'Andre, et qu'une poignee a parfois
>utilise Fanchon, du prenom d'un petit-fils).

Il semble que ma famille est l'exception qui confirme la regle: 
"Chamberland" est le nom original de mon ancetre...

Fascinant, la genealogie...

Sylvain Chamberland
Dept. of Biology
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:51:17 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr15.152233.2299@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>
>How about Cornelius the rhinocerous from the Granby zoo?
>He does need a job, since his party folded....

Hey, I could agree with this.  Only two problems...

The Granby zoo sold Cornelius to the San Diego zoo years ago.

And Cornelius died a few years back (leading to the disbanding of
the Rhinoceros party, left without a leader).

If you think people object to the Queen now, how do you think they
would feel about a dead rhino in a U.S. zoo?

:-)

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: O Canada, O Quebec  - reaction
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:19:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.151332.11785@pandora.matrox.com>
	thood@pluton.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>Richler fails to do what
>a writer must do to -- break new ground, or offer new information
>or a new perspective.

Why *must* a writer do this? The bookstores and libraries are full of
books which rehash, restate, and regurgitate already-known information.

As for perspective, what can one say? If it raises absolutely nothing
new, and no new conclusions or observations, then why the fuss over it?

>He shamelessly recites the whole familiar
>history once again, and drags out all the old gripes that would be
>better left buried if not forgotten.

The same could be true of most Quebec nationalists. One could argue that
it is necessary to be aware of the "old gripes" in order to understand
the current tensions.

>The renewed accusations of anti-semitism are unfair.

Are they provably untrue? If not, *how* are they unfair?

>Even if Abbe Groulx
>was a racist, that does not prove that Quebec society was also racist,
>or that it was particularly racist, or that it remains so.

That is but one element of the whole situation. But if Groulx is taken
to be the ideological father of the current wave of nationalism, then
it is reasonable to be suspicious of the movement's motivations and
methods.

>Of course the situation is very bad for the English, but they could do 
>with something more than articulate fussing and bitterness.

Richler is neither the first voice nor the last in this matter. If his
words are spoken out of anger, or bitterness, or rejection in the land
of his birth, does that invalidate his feelings? Does it require anyone
to read his words more than those of any other analysis?

Again, if these are just the easily-dismissed whinings of a crank,
then why are so many people getting upset over it?

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
              If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?