HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Deficits Forever (was Re: How about some polling?)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:25:24 GMT

In <BuE1D6.71p@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> sitomlin@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Stephen I. Tomlinson) writes:
>Actually, the federal government can run exponentially increasing deficits
>forever, even with low inflation and fair interest rates.  One way to do it 
>is to have the country's gross domestic product (GDP) growing at least as 
>fast as the debt.

>And this situation isn't just theory.  The national debt (measured in 
>nominal dollars) more than doubled between 1945 and 1975, but nominal GDP
>rose more than 10 times, greatly reducing the debt burden (i.e. we spent
>much less of our incomes on interest payments).  Also, the economy will be 
>outgrowing the debt for most of the 1990's, once Canada's normal rate of 
>economic growth returns.

There's no guarantee that we will return to the growth rate we had before
this recession because there are additional disincentives to growth
that weren't there a few years ago.  One major factor is
a higher (and still growing) tax burden that is largely the result
of the high debt load of all levels of government.

Other factors are related to significant changes that are being made to our
society.  While many Canadians would consider the following changes to be
good, they do have the side effect of discouraging investment and growth.

   1) Pay equity and employment equity legislation which will further
      erode the ability of supply/demand to set wage levels.
   2) In Ontario, new labour legislation that is widely viewed as
      anti-business.
   3) Stricter environmental regulations.  For example, many developments
      now require an environmental assessment which results in extra delays
      and additional costs.  
-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"Why can't we just forget about our constitutional problems and go canoeing?"
Xref: sparky can.general:4344 can.politics:6526 soc.culture.canada:6355
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Lower and upper Canadas
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:20:08 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep6.102143.29782@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <Bu4rKJ.42s@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
>> In 1867, province of Quebec was "created" by renaming Lower Canada.
>> But, the "Province of Quebec" was formed in about 1765 and included
>> Quebec, Ontario and south of Great Lakes (northern part was added later).
>> 
>
>Didn't "New France" become "Quebec" in 1759/1760 after France abandoned
>it, under Montcalm, to General Wolfe?
>

I think the actual naming Quebec Province is from 1763, when the French colony
was officially given to England (or shall I say to UK? in those days when
the scottish nationalists are awaking?).

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

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.general
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: Re: Justifying guns
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:42:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep05.144934.9790@rose.com> peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill) writes:
>| (Ramin Dowlati) writes:
>| >Can anybody out there really justify the sale of fire arms in this society?
>To which I replied:
>|  ... [usual paranoid-apocalyptic reasons: defense against invaders,
>|  readiness to rise in revolution, insurance against loss of civic
>|  order] ...
>But none of the above provides any justification whatsoever for the 
>right to own handguns, assault rifles, automatic weapons for 
>semi-automoatic with excessive loading capabilities. 

 I agree totally, and think all the reasons, including the more
 mundane ones of hunting for food and target-shooting for fun, for
 owning a gun are reasons only for owning non-automatic long guns.
 I like our present system, with its agreeable combination of the
 best elements of the British and American practices, just fine.
From: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: zundel
Date: 5 Sep 92 17:02:45 EST
Reply-To: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems




     Original message from: TERENCE MICHAEL LABACH

TM>  Newsgroup: can.general
TM> Message-ID: <LABACH.92Sep3101606@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
TM>    Subject: zundel
TM>
TM>In article <1992Sep1.709.6541@dosgate> "steve hartwell"
TM><steve.hartwell@canrem.com> writes:

TM>> I say - to protect Freedom of Speech, and Democracy, rule in
TM>favour > of the appealer - Zundel - based on his appeal.
TM>> Then take 'em all out and shoot the sons of bitches.

 Terry writes back:

TM>Funny, that's the sort of thing a Nazi would say about his
TM>opponents. And you really think you're taking the moral high road?
TM>
TM>Respecting freedom of speech is a long way from allowing Canada to
TM>be run by Nazis.  And a lying jackass like Zundel is hardly a
TM>threat to the security of the country.

 Hi Terry,

 with all due respect to your point,
 with which I do agree, in the sense that what I said does sound like
 the same thing as what a Nazi would say,
 and believe that in my words I did say as much,
 and, also, that it is a very difficult road we have to follow,
 without getting lost,

 I'm afraid that I cannot agree that wanting to dispatch people like
 Zundel makes me the same thing as them at all.

 The Nurembourg Trials, found those Nazis, and Nzism, guilty of
 henious crimes against humanity, almost fifty years ago. And
 dispatched quite a few. Yet, we are again being attacked by
 their potentials.

 After it's history, a self-proclaimed Nazi must surely be legally
 recognized as worse than a murderer. And, should be tried, and if
 found guilty of being a Nazi, should be likewise punished, at least
 to the same degree as a murderer, which in Canada does not carry
 the death penalty anymore. For something worse than a murderer,
 perhaps we could have the death penalty.

 We do not allow murderers to roam free, and we usually shot mad dogs.

 The Toronto Star is celebrating it's 100th year during 92.
 They've just recently been re-printing articles from the 1930's.
 Some are about Hitler and the Nazis.

 And sound almost exactly like your comments and mine being bantyed
 back and forth, while those Nazis, expecting at any moment to get
 slapped down, did not, and thereby concluded that the general
 populous agreed with them, which only encouraged them to go ever
 further down their murderous trails.

 To ignore them now, as you suggest, is only to encourage them to do
 it all over again. And mark me, it can happen here.



---
  ACCESS/MAIL 1.00 #0274  Who can say what's around the corner?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Please help stop the violence
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:45:02 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unauthorized translation     [~] [?] [??] approximate, uncertain, uncomprehended
> original text              [translator's comments...       Vive le Net libre!]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier) writes (translated from the French):

I remember this event which saddened me very much, having kids myself.
Still, I believe that pointing to television as the sole cause of
violence is too simplistic.

Wars, murders and rapes have been happening since the world began.  The
advent of television was only about 50 years ago.  Urban violence is due
more to unemployment and poverty than to television.  One could even say
that the outlet that television provides could prevent certain violent
acts in the street.  On the other hand, it is evident that having
constructive programmes on the tube would be better.

With the goal of equity [?], it is perhaps time to reestablish the
death penalty!

[end of translation]

[original:]

robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier) writes:

>	Je me souviens de cet evenement qui m'avais beaucoup attriste
>ayant moi-meme des enfants. Toutefois, je crois que de pointe cons-
>temment la television comme le responsable de la violence est trop
>facile.

>	Les guerres, les meurtres et les viols existent depuis que
>le monde est monde. L'avenement de la television ne date que d'environ
>50 ans. La violence urbaine est beaucoup plus due au chomage et a la
>pauvrete qu'a la television. On pourrait meme dire que le defoulement
>que la television procure pourrait eviter certaines violences dans la
>rue. Par-contre, il est evident que d'avoir des emissions constructives
>aux petits ecrans seraient surement meilleurs.
>	Dans les cas de viols sur des enfants, je croie que notre 
>systeme de justice est en grande partie responsable. Les "fous" s'en
>sortent toujours trop facilement en declarant la demance ou la folie.
>Ils passent quelques temps dans un asile puis resortent supposement
>guerie pour recommencer. Les pedohiles et les pyromanes sont deux
>exemples de tel sorte de gens. En general, bien connus des policiers,
>ils sont les premiers suspects. Mais toujours apres avoir commis
>un crime atroce ou d'inocentes victimes ont payees de leur vie les
>erreurs de notre systeme de justice.

>	Dans un but d'equite, il serait peut etre temps de retablir
>la peine de mort!

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Xref: sparky can.general:4311 can.politics:6486 soc.culture.canada:6316
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Date: 5 Sep 92 23:53:53 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep4.200854.26493@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.180742.5242@bnr.ca> alanw@bnr.ca writes:
>
>>The Canadian Parliamentary system wouldn't be that bad, if only we could crack
>>party discipline.
>
>Once again:  Proportional representation!  If a party gets 40% of the
>votes, they get 40% of the seats.  Period.  So no majority government
>unless a party gets more than 50% of the votes, which is unlikely even
>now, and would be even more unlikely in a proportional representation
>system (how many people favour the Green Party, for example, but vote
>PC or liberal because they feel voting Green would be throwing their
>vote away?  But with PropRep, 1% of the vote would get the Greens 2 or
>3 seats, so the vote WOULD count.)

And 1 rhinoceros.  But also, Indians would have some independent
representatives and maybe some ethnical groups (no idea if this is likely).
I would support some unusual party!

>The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr
>This has been a paid broadcast by the Rhealist Party of Canada
>   Electoral Platform, Point 1:  Abolish suits and ties!
Point 2: Abolish decorum, senate and back-bencher M.P.


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Summary: cracking party discipline
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:55:43 GMT

wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) writes:
>Alan Williams wrote:
>
>	The Canadian Parliamentary system wouldn't be that bad,
>	if only we could crack party discipline.
>
>I think the only way this can effectively be done is if the house rules
>can be modified which currently treat virtually every vote on any gov-
>ernment bill as an implicit test of confidence in the government.

The party still has the MPs by the short and curlies: there are
ministerial positions, re-election funds, later civil service plums, and so
on. A rogue will not be harming the party as much, but she or he will still
be committing political sepukku. What you suggest is necessary, but not
sufficient.

An un-election procedure (recall), in addition to the above, might do it.
Then the backbenchers would have a club to combat the whip. However, this
has the possibility of being very chaotic in many-party scenarios, where a
candidate can win a seat with a ~25% vote.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Deficits Forever (was Re: How about some polling?)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:50:40 GMT

In article <BuE1D6.71p@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> sitomlin@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Stephen I. Tomlinson) writes:
>
>In the years to come, I won't be surprised to find that most Canadians 
>believe that our debt burden is increasing (because nominal debt is rising) 
>even while the debt burden is actually decreasing (because the debt-to-GDP 
>ratio is decreasing).
>

Still our current debt burden is too high, and most of the gains made
by the federal Tories in restraint and higher taxes, have been offset
by various provinicial governments' (of all stripes...BC Socreds,
Alberta and Saskatchewan Tories, Ontario and Quebec Liberals, and the
Ontario NDP) profligate spending, deficits, and higher taxes, 
out-of-control municipal politicians and crown corporations like
Ontario Hydro.  We are making slow progress...but it is not yet time to
abandon concern about the debt burden of governments.

I would not necessarily be opposed to increased spending on
infrastructure investments by government at this time, but social
spending should always be pay-as-you-go...governments should not
go into debt to pay for social programs...they should always be
funded on a sustainable basis, and not on credit as they were
for much of the seventies and eighties.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: Ed (the iguana) Memorial Society
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 23:49:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.020653.27163@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason) writes:
>There are simple statistics.  Fewer guns=fewer deaths.  Isn't that the point?

stricter gun control will do very little to lower the number of guns.

most handguns used in canadian crime are US based, or stolen.

>An outright ban seems logical.  Someone mentioned target shooting for sport
>and that the guns would remain at the range.  Fine.  I'm not sure why archery
>isn't equivalent, but that's just an opinion.

outright bans don't work, and don't show much respect for the law-abiding
citizens.

ok, there are way too many auto-accidents, so we are going to ban private
vehicle ownership, and force everyone on public transit.

alcohol causes way too much harm to our society, so in order to keep that
minority of abusers straight, we will not allow anyone to drink it.

"An outright ban seems logical" ???

i don't think out-right bans on anything is going to change anything.

>If we allow guns, why exactly don't we allow hand grenades and tanks?

oh, don't be absurd.  this is Canada, not the US.

(mind you KW Surplus in Kitchener, Ontario has an old Sherman for sale)

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[   "Like a pump in a fish tank, we keep new things coming in so old things   ]
[    don't die." -- Archie McPhee Catalog                                     ]
Newsgroups: can.general,sfu.general,sfu.grad,soc.culture.canada
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Re: Sahaj Yoga
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 12:25:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.015622.749@cs.sfu.ca>, nitish@cs.sfu.ca (Nitish Mandal) writes:
|>  
|> SHRI MATAJI TO TOUR NORTH AMERICA
|> ---------------------------------
|> 
|> Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, founder of Sahaja Yoga, will be touring
|> the U.S. and Canada during September. She will be offering free 
|> lectures on self-realization and the "Sahaja Yoga experience." Her 
|> itinerary includes visits to New York, Cincinnati, Toronto, Vancouver, 
|> Seattle, and Los Angeles.
|> 
|> Shri Mataji believes that world peace and collective consciousness can
               --------
|> be achieved only through the inner transformation of human beings. Her
|> system of meditation, Sahaja Yoga, manifests a subtle energy. This is 
|> experienced as vibrations which are felt on the central nervous system
|> and lead to greater awareness and deeper intuition. Rather than requiring 
|> a "leap of faith," it is an actual experience of the integration of our
      ------------- 
|> physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual being. It thus brings about 
|> complete balance and inner peace. By bringing together people of all 
|> religious, ethnic, and social backgrounds, she has proven that the human 
|> bond is more than skin deep and that all ideologies are encompassed by 
                                        ---------------------------------
|> the same universal values and truths.
   ------------------------------------- 
|> 
Fascinating - Naziism and Quakers, communism and capitalism, Serbian nationalism
and the Maastrict treaty unifying Europe, the Inquisition and religious tolerance.
The mind boggles at the concept and wonders at the UNIVERSAL!!!!! values these all
share.  I have a suggestion for Shri whozit - why don't you stay and get India in
order first?  Get rid of the religious intolerance in India towards the Sikhs and
Muslems and then maybe I might believe eastern religion has something worthwhile
to tell the West.  
|> 
|> 

--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.general
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: What are the most dangerous (legal) things to do in traffic?
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 22:05:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.112059.21440@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>...
>People who turn left in front of oncoming traffic are making illegal
>and dangerous turns - regardless of which lane they want. Even if
>just about everybody does it!

In B.C. the prohibition is when the oncoming vehicle is within the
intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. This is of
course open to interpretation, but I find it markedly less vague than "in
front of" -- sure hope the law in your province isn't really worded that
way.

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Xref: sparky can.general:4305 can.politics:6473 soc.culture.canada:6312
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:44:37 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <1992Sep5.010200.882@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Rheal Nadeau (nadeau@bnr.ca) wrote:
>>In article <1992Sep4.180742.5242@bnr.ca> alanw@bnr.ca writes:
>>
>>>The Canadian Parliamentary system wouldn't be that bad, if only we could crack
>>>party discipline.
>>
>>Once again:  Proportional representation!  If a party gets 40% of the
>>votes, they get 40% of the seats.  Period.  So no majority government
>>unless a party gets more than 50% of the votes, which is unlikely even
>>now, and would be even more unlikely in a proportional representation
>>system (how many people favour the Green Party, for example, but vote
>>PC or liberal because they feel voting Green would be throwing their
>>vote away?  But with PropRep, 1% of the vote would get the Greens 2 or
>>3 seats, so the vote WOULD count.)
>
>Although I agree, for the most part, with the points that Rheal makes re PR
>[which I have deleted for the sake of brevity], I think I would prefer a
>system that includes the German restriction that a party must receive at
>least 5% of the vote in order to qualify for seats in Parliament. The
>Germans seem to have done quite well with this arrangement whereas Italy
>and Israel have no such rule and the result seems to often be chaos in the
>case of Italy (I believe that the average life expectancy of an Italian
>government is under a year), or a situation where a number of small parties
>with little popular support are able to wield influence totally out of
>proportion to the votes they received, as happens in Israel.

Proportional representation should also come with term limits!

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:37:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep08.143446.10191@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.023007.24210@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep07.205612.7601@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>>hand grenades would fall into the same category, there is no justification,
>>>historical or otherwise, for private ownership of high explosives.
>>>
>>NO justification?  In Canada?  I'll bet that there's more private use of
>>HE in Canada than there is in any other country in the world.  I roomed
>>with a family in which the husband (who was certainly NOT working for the
>>government, other than the 60-70% of his income that eventually went to
>>various gov't agencies...) had considerable quantities of explosive-related
>>materials.
>
>someone who uses HE for business reasons would not really be "private
>ownership".  i'm talking about people going out and buying HE for
>entertainment/hobby type uses.  legitimately.

	Explosives  and incindiaries  compare poorly with fire-arms, 
since e&i materials are much easier to make at home. Given a disregard
for personal safety, anyone with  a highschool  background in chemistry
should  be  able to make enough explosive matter to blow off a few fingers
for entertainment. Creative people should be able to level a house without
*too* much  trouble, especially if the  house is  heated with natural gas.

	Note that  pointing  out that one *can* do  something is  not the
same as advocating  doing it.

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada