HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:42:42 GMT

In article <6OCT92.13442609@wl.aecl.ca> lavackm@wl.aecl.ca writes:
>
>
>With all this talk on the referendum, I was wondering if the Montreal Canadiens
>and the Quebec Nordiques will have to leave the NHL if Quebec separates?
>
It is a long time since the National in NHL is not limited to Canada.
Of the 22 teams now, which are Canadian ?  Canuck, Oilers, Flames,
Jets, Maple Leaf, future Senators, Canadien and Nordiques, that is
7/22 (8/23) if I did not included teams no more existing (I am not
a hockey fan, so I am sure what the whole league includes).

This is obviously a joke of saying that Canadien could not be a part
of NHL if Montreal is not in Canada.

Just compare with baseball : Montreal in the National League and Toronto
in the American League, both not American (if American == USAn).

Isn't it in 1980 that the Expos said he was to move the Expos because
of referendum, or in 1976 ?  Mixing politics and sports is some kind of joking.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !
Xref: sparky can.general:4822 ott.general:1226 can.politics:8161
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:46:10 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1184

From article <BvEIFw.5Dq@animal.er.bell.ca>, by alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney):
> Steve Potter (steven@spxtech.qc.ca) wrote:
> : From article <Bv5114.B3n@animal.er.bell.ca>, by alex@animal.Bell.CA
> :  Alex Laney declares:
> : 
> : 
> : Please don't listen to the yeasayers who are holding their noses.
> : 
> : Rejet the sellout of our democratic principles.
> : 
> : VOTE AN EMPHATIC "NO!" on OCT> 26th.
> : 
> 
> I am amazed at you, an anglo in Quebec not wanting the francophones to have
> the powers they need. What gives you the right? Do you know better?
> 

They already have more than enough power to trample over my rights.

I don't want to give them any more!

There is nothing wrong with giving them the powers they need to protect
their language and culture. I support them in this.

Not by taking away my rights as an English-speaking citizen of Canada!!!

"NO!"

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.general:4859 can.politics:8305 ott.general:1250
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: October 26th 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: 10 Oct 92 23:33:40 GMT

Francois Audet (audetf@Software.Mitel.COM) wrote:
>In article <douglasc.718404214@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>]What Quebec and Ontarion did was trade in 18 useless Senate seats each
>]province for more powerful House seats.  From the view of an Ontarion
>]or Quebecer it looks fair.  But to BCers it does not.
>]Another thing that irks many BC people is that in this so called
>]compromise is the VETO for all provinces concerning the House and Senate.
>]This veto gives every province an effective veto to stop all changes in
>]the future as the country changes in the future.  This means that
>]if circumstances change and one porovince is under or over
>]represented the province over represented will want no change and
>]those under represented will clamor for change.  This COMPROMISE
>]package will cause dissention and unfairness to be unchangeable.
>
>My view is:
>
>1) The Senate should be completely scrapped
>2) A "real" rep-by-pop at the commons, including ALL provinces
>   (Quebec, & PEI).

It is now obvious that Central Canada would never allow anything even close
to a true EEE senate. As well, it is also obvious that senate reform has
opened up a whole can of worms wrt democracy & quotas. So, I might be
tempted to go with Francois' suggestion. However, I suggest the following
additions to the two points above.

1) Changes to HoC rules that would only allow a government to be toppled
   by an *explicit* vote of no confidence. Such a vote could be
   automatically triggered when a money bill (budget) fails. Such an 
   amendment would hopefully give MPs some incentive to be more
   representative of their ridings and provinces.

2) An amendment that would make an NEP-like  program illegal. This would
   be needed to soften the loss of the EEE senate to our friends in
   Alberta.

3) An amendment that applies to *electrical energy* that would make federal
   NEP-like tax policies illegal. This should interest our friends in
   Quebec who make lots of $$ selling hydro and who probably would not 
   like to be told how much they could sell it for. 

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

Newsgroups: can.general
From: h4robins@student.business.uwo.ca (Heather Robinson)
Subject: Reform Party's position
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:06:18 GMT

Could someone please explain something to me?
I thought the whole appeal of the Reform Party was that they were 
promising to represent the views of Canadians in Parliament.  People are 
sick of politicians who have their own political agenda behind everything 
and who go off to Ottawa and stop listening to what their riding wants.  
If the Reform Party is such a grassroots "we'll listen to you" type of 
party, how can they be so vigorously campaigning for the NO side with so 
much of the country still undecided?  Am I missing something?  Or are 
they actually being very inconsistent?

h4robins@student.business.uwo.ca (Heather Robinson)
Western Business School  --  London, Ontario
Newsgroups: can.general
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Re: For those who like the German example of highways ...
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 13:40:35 GMT

pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:

>Note that your posting did NOT mention how many cars were involved.  All it
>said was that there was a multi-car accident in the fog on an Autobahn.

The poster from rec.auto.driving had the number 220 in his subject line.
This was included in my original post, as I included the entire banner.
I simply quoted his article, without providing an argument.
In subsequent articles, I did make my own arguments regarding the
association between speed and accidents, which I believe this is one 
example of.  Certainly there are other differences between Germany and
Canada besides the speed limits and no one factor can be the cause of
this mess.  I originally wanted to just provide the report to this
newgroup as a counter example to the impression left by other posters
regarding the safety of driving on the autobahn.  Unfortunately
people presume that this kind of passing on of information manifests
a "manipulation", and then as well, I have failed to "prove" my point.
In the future I will include warning banners that I have done such a
thing for your information only.  I can't help but wonder if the persons
who are in such rabid disagreement with the suggestion that speed can have
anything to do with accidents, might be the same idiots I have to
endure everyday.  They basically have a false confidence.  If they
were the only people on the road, their premise of "I can control
this machine" would usually hold true.  But the roads are a social
zone, and courtesy, care, and caution are the sort of things that
help it work out.  Not aggression, tires, RPM, turbo, HP, great paint jobs,
and the sensations of being a fighter pilot.


Xref: sparky can.general:4858 can.politics:8303
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:00:59 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct5.165105.21987@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>PEI, NB, and NS are indeed over-represented and in an ideal world would not
>be. Does this mean we should further distort the system?
>
In fact, NS would not be over-represented under the Ch'town Accord.
It and Nfld would be almost exactly at rep by pop.  BC, Alta, and
Ont would be underrepresented, and the other provinces (PEI, NB,
Que, Man, Sask) overrepresented.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Xref: sparky can.general:4872 comp.infosystems.gopher:708 alt.internet.services:1054
From: daniel@nstn.ns.ca (Daniel MacKay)
Newsgroups: can.general,comp.infosystems.gopher,alt.internet.services
Subject: Canadian Organizations, by gopher!
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:45:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: nstn.1992Oct13.144536.11105
Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada

Hello!

For those of you who have been complaining about a lack of a whois-like
service for Canada, for those of you who'd like to browse through Canadian
organizations that may be connected to the Internet, and of course for the
information junkies, the Canadian Domain information is now available by
gopher.  This is the registration information for all 407 (as-of-today)
organizations which have registered within the .CA domain.

Point your gopher to

	nstn.ns.ca

The Canadian Domain information is in

	White Pages
	   Canadian Organizations

There's also a fulltext, whole-word search on the entries, which include
contact names and descriptions of the company.  So for instance, if you did
a search on "fish" you'd find companies which had mentioned that word in
their one-paragraph blurb.  They're whole word searches, so:
 - if a company only mentions "fisheries" you won't find it with a search
   on "fish".
 - If you search on "Halifax", why, you'll find all the companies whose
   application form contain that word, and since mailing address is one 
   of the fields of the application form, you'll get a pretty good 
   correlation with companies that are located in Halifax.
 - If you search "mackay" you'll find forms in which my name appears, among
   others.

For you unfortunate few still lacking a gopher client of your own, help
yourself to the experimental, non-production NSTN public gopher: telnet
with your favourite VT100 emulator to nstn.ns.ca as "fred", no password.

This data is brought to you by the Canadian Domain Name Committee, who
publish it by FTP, and NSTN, which fetches the entries and gopherizes them.

Enjoy!  As always, we're looking for feedback on this service.  Please,
send bricks, send bouquets, to

	support@nstn.ns.ca

--
	Daniel MacKay				daniel@nstn.ns.ca
	NOC Manager, NSTN Operations Centre	902-494-NSTN
	Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:11:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.154851.14372@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct08.173516.12392@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>>  The other point is that this is a significant foot in the door for
>>Senate reform. Over time its powers will increase of wane depending on
>>how well it gets used or abused. I think the stepwise approach where
>>it is clear there is room for more reform rather than the all-or-nothing
>>approach has considerable merit.
>
>If you want an evolution of Senate reform, the requirement for unanimity
>for future changes to it shouldn't be entrenched.
>Gerald

  No, I think that there are certain fundamental institutions and rules
that should never be changed unless the changes are universally accepted.
The goal is to keep this set as small as possible, but if some element of
government has a fundamental control over your life, then changing it
against your will is definitely a bad thing. 
  Multiple majorities, ie 7/50, ES+FS, all provinces etc are good checks
against democratic mob rule and I-hate-XXX-so-I-am-going-to-vote-to-
maximize-the-SP(screwup-potential). Incidentally, we need municipally
based provincial senates and more of the same kind of check and balance
system at lower levels of government as well. This will solve the
provincial fiefdom problem in a better way than moving it up one level 
to make us all subject to one gross national fiefdom.
---- 
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.general,sci.research.careers
From: bae@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Beverly Erlebacher)
Subject: Re: Engineering education
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:52:36 GMT

In article <92Oct5.154511edt.47512@neat.cs.toronto.edu> tlai@cs.toronto.edu (Tony Wen Hsun Lai) writes:
>The Oct. 5 issue of the Globe and Mail had an article saying that "Canada
>must change its engineering education system or risk being left behind in
>the global market, a report to be released today warns."  The report has
>some interesting ideas, but the article later says, "Over the next 15
>years, engineering schools `will have to hire at a massive rate to
>compensate for retirements and to fill new positions.'"  Does anyone
>really believe this?  The quote sounds like a regurgitation of old shortage
>myths.
>
>Tony Lai

This doesn't sound entirely unreasonable.  Many universities expanded and 
hired a lot of new faculty in the early and mid 1960's to deal with the
first wave of the baby boom reaching college age.  Most people hired then
will be retiring within the next 15 years.  Some fields, notably computers
and electronics, became more important later, additional faculty were hired
in the 1970's and 1980's, so people in these departments are on average
somewhat younger.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: tessier@bnr.ca (Daniel Tessier)
Subject: Re: LONG LIVE BLUE JAYS!!!
Reply-To: Daniel.Tessier@bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 14:27:04 GMT

In article <Bw4tnv.IM3@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
|> Well, it's bottom of the 8th, and 7-2 for the blue jays, so let's hear it:
|> 
|> THE BLUE JAYS RULE! You guys had better be off of your computer terminals
|> during the world series, or steve will be unhappy. 
Yeah, that'd be almost as bad as being at your computer terminal
during the last game of the ALCS!   :-)

|>    This leads up to an interesting point however... If Quebec separated
|> from Canada, would we still let the Expos win a few games? 
Huh?

-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------------\
| Dan Tessier		       PHONE   : (613)765-2380		|
| Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. INTERNET: Daniel.Tessier@bnr.ca 	|
| Ottawa, Ontario, Canada      UUCP    : none right now...	|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Live and don't learn, that's us."				|
|			       - Calvin & Hobbes		|
\---------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: can.general
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: LONG LIVE BLUE JAYS!!!
Followup-To: can.general
Summary: VICTORY
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:11:54 GMT

Well, it's bottom of the 8th, and 7-2 for the blue jays, so let's hear it:

THE BLUE JAYS RULE! You guys had better be off of your computer terminals
during the world series, or steve will be unhappy. 
   This leads up to an interesting point however... If Quebec separated
from Canada, would we still let the Expos win a few games? 

steve


-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: can.general,can.francais
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: 3, 4, 5?
Followup-To: poster
Summary: What technical change?  Quelle changement d'ordre technique?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 18:42:14 GMT


In section 43 of the Consensus Report on the Constitution, under the
headings "First Peoples - Charter Issues", we see:

|  A technical change should be made to the English text of
|  sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
|  Freedoms to ensure that it corresponds to the French text.

Dans l'article 43 du Rapport du consensus sur la Constitution,
sous les titres "Les Premieres Nations - Les questions relatives
a la Charte", on voit:

|  Il y aurait lieu d'apporter un changement d'ordre technique
|  a la version anglaise des articles 3, 4 et 5 de la Charte
|  canadienne des droits et libertes afin qu'elle corresponde
|  a la version francaise.

Does anyone know what this is about [and why the French wins :-)],
or have a copy of the parallel texts of these sections?  Y a-t-il
quelqu'un qui sait de quoi il s'agit ici [et pourquoi c'est le francais
qui gagne :-)], ou qui a les textes paralleles de ces articles?

Direct responses to me, please; I'll post a followup if I learn
anything.  SVP dirigez vos reponses a moi; j'afficherai une article
si j'apprendrai quelquechose.

(Mes apologies pour des fautes de francais et la manque d'accents.)
-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	"... pure English is de rigueur"
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com			-- Manchester Guardian Weekly

This article is in the public domain.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:54:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.174556.12548@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.162136.14744@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>The ratio of 125%/94% gives about a 30% difference in voting power
>>between a person in BC (or Alberta and Ontario) and Quebec...which
>>is not insignificant...it means it will take 4 BC'er to equal 3
>>Quebeckers.
>
>  Is not the acceptable variation in riding size something like 25% right
>now. That is while you are ranting and raving for provincial parity, the
>current crop of MPs may have some whose electors are 4 times more
>effective than some others ...
>
>  Seems like questionable priorities to me.

I consider most of the current distortions too large...and would fully
support moves to a much stricter application of representation by
population.

None the less, the current distortions, apart from the small provinces,
are mostly randomly distributed across the big and mid-sized
provinces...the 25% threshold is not a random distortion.

Gerald

Xref: sparky can.general:4835 can.politics:8238 ott.general:1236
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:47:06 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <douglasc.718404214@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
]What Quebec and Ontarion did was trade in 18 useless Senate seats each
]province for more powerful House seats.  From the view of an Ontarion
]or Quebecer it looks fair.  But to BCers it does not.
]Another thing that irks many BC people is that in this so called
]compromise is the VETO for all provinces concerning the House and Senate.
]This veto gives every province an effective veto to stop all changes in
]the future as the country changes in the future.  This means that
]if circumstances change and one porovince is under or over
]represented the province over represented will want no change and
]those under represented will clamor for change.  This COMPROMISE
]package will cause dissention and unfairness to be unchangeable.

My view is:

1) The Senate should be completely scrapped
2) A "real" rep-by-pop at the commons, including ALL provinces
   (Quebec, & PEI).


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Is this referendum a rational choice procedure ?
Organization: York University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:01:09 GMT

I came across the following in a book by H.J. Eysenck, the British
psychologist.
The topic is social-political attitudes, and the Thouless he quotes is
author of the classic "Straight and Crooked Thinking".  
Eysenck wrote
   " .. psychological finding .. Many years ago, R.H. Thouless enunciated
   " his 'law of certainty', based on a large body of research.  It
   " read as follows
   "    When, in a group of persons, there are influences acting in
   "    both the direction of acceptance and of rejection of a belief,
   "    the result is not to make the majority adopt a lower degree of
   "    conviction, but to make some hold the belief with a high degree
   "    of conviction, while others reject it also with a high
   "    degree of conviction.
   " In other words, when nobody knows with any certainty what the
   " truth is, people adopt extreme postions, either for or
   " against.

With minor transformations this seems to apply to this referendum.

On the subject of rationality and straight and crooked thinking, I
have just heard the following from a MPP :
    (A paraphrase)
    If you don't want Quebec to separate then you should vote NO.
    The separatists will vote NO and want English Canada to vote
    YES to make their case obvious.  If English Canada votes NO
    also it will negate the effect of the Quebec NO.

There are influences acting in both the direction of acceptance and
of _rejection_ of a belief in the rationality of some politicians !

What about the referendum itself ?  It is a rational choice procedure ?
Or does it have more in common with, say, a game of poker in which
the sharks are luring in the suckers by presenting it as simple
best-hand-wins game and gentlemen don't bluff ?
If not a rational choice procedure then what is the best response to
its irrationality ?

--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada

Newsgroups: can.general
From: h4robins@student.business.uwo.ca (Heather Robinson)
Subject: Distinct societies
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:05:46 GMT

Hugh and Francois:  mets-en!   I agree with you totally.  Refreshing to 
find people who share my opinion.

h4robins@student.business.uwo.ca (Heather Robinson)
Western Business School  --  London, Ontario
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics