HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Lower and upper Canadas
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:48:04 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep8.213428.7721@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <12800@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>In article (Steve Potter) writes:
>>>Didn't "New France" become "Quebec" in 1759/1760 after France abandoned
>>>it, under Montcalm, to General Wolfe?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>PS: It wasn't "abandoned"; it was conquered and invaded.
>
>Aye, time for a history lesson (from someone who has no busines giving
>history lessons.  What year did Champlain settle in Quebec?  Uh, 1908?
>:-) )

Rheal, ou as-tu toi-meme appris l'histoire?  ;^{)

>One of the conditions of capitulation, for Napoleon, involved his
>ceding to England one of France's colonies:  Canada, or St. Pierre &
>Miquelon.  Napoleon chose to keep the islands over Canada, which was
>considered to be nothing more than "quelques arpents de neige"
>(Voltaire).
>
>The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

En 1759, defaite des Plaines d'Abraham.  Montcalm vaincu par Wolfe.
Les deux generaux meurent durant la bataille.

En 1763, un traite (le traite de Paris?) accorde le Canada au Royaumu-Uni.
Le Canada de 1763 comprend le sud du Quebec et de l'Ontario et le sud
des Grands Lacs (par exemple, Fort Erie ou Detroit).  Il y a eu differentes
negociations et les Etats-Unis ont finalement conserve la rive sud et
la frontiere est devenue celle que l'on connait.

En 1791, 1837, 1840, 1867, etc., il y a eu differents evenements locaux.
En 1775 et 1812, des tentatives d'invasion par les Etats-Unis.
Mais, apres 1763, le Canada n'appartient plus a la France.
L"Acadie etait deja perdue en 1713 (traite d'Utrecht?).

Alors, que vient faire Napoleon dans tout cela?

Il a vendu la Louisiane aux Americains pour financer ses guerres
(pour quelques millions, les Etats-Unis ont double leur surface).
Mais pas de rapport avec le Canada.


-- 
  \_\    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: sfu.general,sfu.grad,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Sahaj Yoga
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:32:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.022442.914@cs.sfu.ca> nitish@cs.sfu.ca (Nitish Mandal) writes:
>                            SAHAJ YOGA - A UNIQUE DISCOVERY
>
>                             by Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

When the heck did soc.culture.canada turn into
soc.my.religion.is.better.than.yours?  First that Muslim guy, now the
yogi.

I'd have no objection to one post, but THREE?  This could get very
cluttered - how many religions are there out there anyway?  :-)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Xref: sparky can.general:4312 can.politics:6488 soc.culture.canada:6317
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Lower and upper Canadas
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:19:31 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In 1840, Lower and Upper Canadas were merged so that Ontario debt
from recent settlement was cancelled.  But, if you check in various
census, you will see that they were considered as 2 provinces.

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).

FYI, see the division of Canada in censuses of 1825, 1831/1832, 1841, 
1851, 1861 and 1871.

-- 
  \_\    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 !
Xref: sparky can.general:4310 can.politics:6485 soc.culture.canada:6315
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 23:34:52 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <12773@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.131830.2610@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>Canada's only saving grace politically is that people usually vote for
>>different parties at the federal and provicial levels. Not all people - but
>>enough to keep the rulings parties out of synch. This creates a healthy
>>tension. 
>
>Futhermore, in some provinces (e.g. Quebec) there are provincial
>parties that don't have an equivalent at the federal level (e.g., PQ).
>The provincial Liberal party seems today to be more aligned with the
>federal Conservative Party than the Liberal Party.
>
>Like you said, this is healthy and has a much more important impact
>than a Senate (elected or not).

Chose interessante : la separation des partis federal et quebecois a commence
avec le parti conservateur qui a forme le gros de l'Union Nationale de 
Duplessis.  Mais, les partis liberaux sont restes lies jusqu'a tout
recemment : on devenait membre de l'autre en devenant du premier et
vice-versa.  Je pense que les liberaux se sont separes a l'occasion
de la loi 178, mais je ne suis pas certain.  Quant au NPD, j'ai
l'impression que l'aile quebecoise a ete fondee par des souverainistes
decus du PQ et qu'ils ont probablement utilise le NPD federal pour
lancer l'aile quebecoise, avant de scinder les deux.  Le NPD a ete pres
du PQ si on considere sa position centre-gauche et socio-democrate, mais
a fait elire recemment (Philip Edmunston) son premier depute.  Le NPD-Q
demeure loin derriere les 2 principaux partis au Quebec.

Certains ont presente comme une caracteristique quebecoise l'espece
de dichotomie qui envoyait Levesque a Quebec et Trudeau a Ottawa.
Si je me rappelle bien, il y a quelques annees, le federal etait
conservateur contre aucune province bleue (ou une seule?).
Comme quoi, ce phenomene n'etait pas aussi quebecois.


>-- 
>                                                       Francois Audet
>                                                           '
>        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
>                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM


-- 
  \_\    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 !
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:03:12 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 594

From article <cs_jh.681.0@cox.nsac.ns.ca>, by cs_jh@cox.nsac.ns.ca (Dr Jeff Hoyle):
> Is the text for thye new constitutional deal available on Internet?  If so 
> could someone please point me in the right direction?  Thanks


Check under can.politics: there are several references. 

:-)
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.general:4390 can.politics:6614 soc.culture.canada:6421
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Lower and upper Canadas
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:31:34 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1386

From article <12800@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> In article (Steve Potter) writes:
>>Didn't "New France" become "Quebec" in 1759/1760 after France abandoned
>>it, under Montcalm, to General Wolfe?
> 
> No.
> 
> PS: It wasn't "abandoned"; it was conquered and invaded.
> 


Any good historians out there able to clarify this one?

My fuzzy understanding was that Montcalm had upset the big cheese in
France who was busy with some other business in Europe. The big cheese
in France was aware of the British threat but didn't give a damn. He
abandoned Quebec under Montcalm. Montcalm had tried to bolster his
forces with anybody and his uncle that he could find willing to help
him. His "armies" were a disorganised rabble as a result. When the
British "invaded" they "conquered" without too much trouble.

That is my vague, probably distorted, understanding of the events.

( I spent a lot of my history periods in the school computer room so
  don't take my word for it! :-)  )

Somebody with an authoritative understanding of this please enlighten us.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.general:4429 soc.culture.canada:6489
From: iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Bigger worries than which lane to drive in
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:14:48 GMT
Reply-To: iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

mstede@cs.toronto.edu (Manfred Stede) writes:

>While you're outside of Europe, you're in the midst of what will soon be 
>the largest free trade zone in the world, yet none of the three countries
>involved is seriously considering a political union.

Some degree of political union must occur in Europe if the economy of
the European trade block is to progress and compete against the NAFTA
block and the Asian economies. It won't work when each country has different 
policies on interest rates, money supply, etc. It's also not clear how
well it'll work if every country has different employment practices or
social security and health care schemes.

The British Govt. makes a lot of noise about not wanting a federal Europe
with, presumably, the Germans at the helm. The fact is that, even today,
if the German mark hiccups, the pound follows; if German interest rates
change, so the rates here almost certainly follow. Why keep arguing
against political union and pretend to have complete control over our own
affairs? Politicians are always going on about how the bureaucrats from
Brussels keep wanting to do away with our multi-flavoured potato chips
or our smelly cheeses or whatever. The real truth is that Britain has
already lost a substantial amount of so called sovereignty, especially
in the area where it counts most: the economy.

*If* you get rid of the unelected bureaucrats (this is one of the
worst aspects of the Maastricht Treaty and one of major reasons people
don't like it) and replace them with elected EuroMPs, I don't see why
we'd be worse off. EuroMPs *could* be made just as accountable as our
national MPs (not hard to do in Britain!)

Anyway, I'm sure a similar de facto political union will take place
with the NAFTA countries.

Innes
Newsgroups: can.general
From: cs_jh@cox.nsac.ns.ca (Dr Jeff Hoyle)
Subject: New Constitution text??
Organization: NS Agricultural College
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:08:31 GMT

Is the text for thye new constitutional deal available on Internet?  If so 
could someone please point me in the right direction?  Thanks

Xref: sparky can.general:4399 soc.culture.canada:6431
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:00:29 GMT
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services

In article <1992Sep8.185507.25540@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>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. ...
>>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.
>I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "private
>ownership."  ...
>I generally consider "private ownership" to refer to things owned by
>citizens in their role as private citizens ...

 It used to be fairly common in both the US and Canada for farmers 
 to privately acquire and use dynamite for stump removal and rock
 fragmentation.  Somebody with more up-to-date information on
 Canadian law please tell us if this is no longer allowed.
 
 Once you have HE of any type, it takes only a tomato juice can and
 two scoops of old bolts and nails to make a nasty grenade or bomb.
 
 Also, explosives can be manufactured out of legally obtainable
 substances with other purposes; I don't think it would be responsible
 to enlarge on that factoid in this medium.
 
 For those who like to live dangerously and possibly briefly,
 moderate  quantities of explosives can be accumulated out of firearm
 ammunition.
 
 I'm not advocating a bomb factory in every basement, just pointing
 out that there are many ways, some of them entirely legal and the
 others uncontrollable, in which something that makes a loud bang
 can be acquired by anyone.
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: Bigger worries than which lane to drive in
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:51:00 GMT

In article <92Sep10.120646edt.47918@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, mstede@cs.toronto.edu (Manfred Stede) writes...
>cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
> 
>>In article <9SEP199218280179@jetson.uh.edu> schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.) writes:

Whoa, wait a minute!  How did my name get attached to this discussion?
None of the words printed here are mine.


> 
>>Speaking as an outsider, it's difficult to imagine economic union without
>>political union.  It seems that trying to send goods and services across
>>present national borders with the numerous regulations of each country to
>>comply with is an economic waste.  It seems that much of the opposition to
>>union (either political or economic) is the politicians.  Why in Europe does
>>one need to make 30 different light bulbs to satisfy each country when one
>>would do just as well?
> 
>While you're outside of Europe, you're in the midst of what will soon be 
>the largest free trade zone in the world, yet none of the three countries
>involved is seriously considering a political union.
> 
>I agree with the light bulbs point; it's annoying to travel from Canada 
>to Germany, Italy and GB and to need four different adaptors in order to
>shave in the morning.  But again, this may well be settled without a 
>central government, just as -- for instance -- all sorts of communication 
>systems have been more or less standardized around the world.
> 
>-manfred
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 02:30:07 GMT

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.

I'll give you a hint...  He does this sort of thing for a living...  It's
related to making holes in the ground...  Sometimes they find valuable
stuff like gold down there...

"NO justification" is pretty drastic!  You'd outlaw the mining industries
pretty quickly!  Of course, some of the environmentalists would like this.

>>And for those people who believe that "guns don't kill people, people kill
>>people", go to your bookstore and look up some anti-gun material.
>
>i explicitly didn't use that phrase, it would have been nice if you included
>the context.

And pray consider:  Anti-gun material is PROPAGANDA.
                    Pro-gun  material is PROPAGANDA.

There are two sides here, that fundamentally disagree, and have no interest
in letting the other side win, whether the opposition is "partially right"
or not.

It is axiomatic that guns don't pull their own triggers!  If you're going
to disagree, state something about the likelihood of the OWNERS of the
guns pulling the triggers.

>
>>Some people
>>are always going to kill, but with guns, it happens more often.  It's the
>>ease with which one can kill with a gun that is the biggest problem.
>>Again, fewer guns=fewer intentional deaths.  This is a fact. 
>
>i don't disagree with that, i just think that tighter gun control will not
>produce a lower number of guns.
>
>it is far too easy to just hop across the border, buy one and stick it under
>your seat.
>
>>Criminals can always get guns.  But, when guns are difficult to come by 
>>and extremely expensive, the number of criminals who have them does go down.
>>And the ones who don't have them are the ones who are 'small time' and break
>>into your home.
>
>i don't think so.  as i said above, the lack of US gun control is the biggest
>failing of Canadian gun control.

Exactly.  Canadian "gun control" will only affect law abiding citizens, 
until such time as there isn't leakage over the US border.
-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: can.general
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: general.general?
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:36:32 GMT

 Every now and then I'll start a thread on some global (in the
 literal sense) issue.  Usually the response indicates that
 participants in can.general don't mind discussing things that
 relate to Canada only inasmuch as Canada is on the planet Earth.
 Occasionally someone feels they (the threads, not the someones)
 are inappropriate and out-of-place, however.
 
 But I have yet to discover any groups like a europe.general,
 world.general or general.general.  Have I missed something; are
 there in fact groups where the state of the world and our lives
 on it are the main subject of discussion?
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:56:26 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:

> In article <cs_jh.681.0@cox.nsac.ns.ca> cs_jh@cox.nsac.ns.ca (Dr Jeff Hoyle) 
> >Is the text for thye new constitutional deal available on Internet?  If so 
> >could someone please point me in the right direction?  Thanks
> >
> 
>  My understanding from this morning's Vancouver Province is that the
>  legal text is not available anywhere yet, because is doesn't yet
>  exist.  It is still being worked on, the campaign leading up to
>  the referendum can start without it, but it will definitely be
>  available before the vote (decent of them).
>  
>  I have no idea whether the legal text is taking so long because
>  it's very hard work, or because the Federal Government wants to
>  release it at the right psychological moment by some criterion or
>  other, or for some other, truly murky reason.


According to staff at my M.P.'s office in Nanaimo, the text is supposed 
to be available by Monday. Apparently, by Monday, you'll be able to call 
1-800-463-3141 and they'll send you a copy.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne

Xref: sparky can.general:4337 soc.culture.canada:6346
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Date: 7 Sep 92 02:34:02 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:

>Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people.

      ... often with guns.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:45:00 GMT

>>>>> On 7 Sep 92 12:49:33 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:

	[...]

  > And automatic by-elections for new mandate if the bum changes party
  > or policy dramatically from that for which he was elected.

	[...]

  >   et al

Je suppose que tu inclus le partie liberal du Quebec au
grand complet dans ton "el al"? Apres tout, Le partie a
decide de ne pas respecter son propre programme...

Si on implante un systeme comme tu le proposes, je dit qu'il
faut aller jusqu'au bout: Si un politicien ne respecte pas
sa parole alors il doit y avoir une election partielle.

Evidemment, determiner si un politicien respect son mandat
ou sa parole est un processus pas mal subjectif.
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.general
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:50:42 GMT

In article <92259.055832REEVESJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <REEVESJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>There was a two page spread in the Sept 8 issue of the Kingston Whig-Standard (
>the local paper in Kingston Ontario).

 There have been _summaries_ all over the place.  What many of us are
 waiting for, however, in the _legal_ _text_.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada