Are you open to seperation?

[Molly]

This was a rhetorical question that he proceeded to actually answer, right? (Seems so: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011049 )

And the Liberals haven't done so great in the West since 1957 so I don't know if PET was the reason, though he probably helped.

Also, didn't Lougheed actually choose to sign on to the NEP?

Ah yes... he described the problems involved, and why he had no particular interest in solving them. The final answer he (Otto Lang) came up with was the LIFT (Lower Inventories For Tomorrow) land set-aside program. The international price was low, so the Wheat board was instructed to withhold international sales rather than allow anyone growing grains in the west any cash flow at all. (Those who could sell into domestic markets were definitely advantaged.)

My Dad at the time was picking up the tab for 4 post-secondary students. How he managed I cannot imagine. A local hog farm had the temerity to offer him slightly less than the cost of delivery to take good wheat off his hands. He was desperate enough for some cash flow that he had to honestly think about it before saying he'd dump it in a slough first. Others delivered just so they could pay their grocer.

"Why should I sell your wheat?" sounds harmless enough written in history books. IRL... let's just call it 'memorable'.

When Trudeau was elected in '68, there were 27 Liberal MP's from the four western provinces in his government. The Liberal party wasn't dominant in the west even under Pearson, but they weren't pariahs until Trudeau worked his magic.

[scouterjim]

And I say that isn't correct. The most important minister comes from there. Yes, the GGH and the 905 get a great many ministerial positions, but that's because most of the population lives there. Harper though, is from Albeta. The West is in. It needs to stop whining (note that I'm a westerner). To expect Ontario to be ignored or weakened given their population and the growth of that population is unreasonable.

It doesn't matter where the PM comes from. They will still bow to, and placate, Ontario and Quebec.

[Dave_ON]

It doesn't matter where the PM comes from. They will still bow to, and placate, Ontario and Quebec.

As they should, the bulk of the population is in those two provinces. That's the idea behind rep by pop. The senate is intended to balance that out and curtail the tyranny of the majority. It's not quite fully functioning that way, but it's a site better than if we didn't have the senate.

[mikedavid00]

Sweeping generalization that simply is not true. No doubt you are a prime candidate for groupthink.

No.

Canada is not 80% city dwellers.

I am from Ottawa. Ottawa used to have a population of 300,000 people. That is the true population of Ottawa. Anyone from Ottawa knows how really small it is. It's common to bump into people everywhere you go. It's like a small town. What they did is amalgamate outwards and then including every outlying region to make Ottawa over a million people.

What the gov't includes as an urban centre are places like Granby, Quebec. Here is a picture of Granby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granby-Boivin-LV.jpg

Does that look urban to you?

Let's forget the gov't issued percentages and focus on reality and intelligence, something the left are incapable of.

There are two population statistics. Urban density, and then what the gov't WANTS everyone to believe - the fake bloated number.

I now live in a 'city' of over 800,000 people, and I almost never run into someone. It's very anonymous here. This place is way bigger than Ottawa and the population is accurate. Saying Ottawa is larger than my city is an outright lie as I've lived in both. Ottawa includes remote, rural area. A LOT of it.

Lets focus on the truth of the matter. Let's focus on the urban density stats of our largest cities. And no, Kitchener Ontario is not included as a real urban center. Let's take a look at population that include even the fake boarders (like Ottawa) and you will see

1 Toronto, Ontario 4,753,120

2 Montreal, Quebec 3,316,615

3 Vancouver, British Columbia 1,953,252

4 Calgary, Alberta 988,079

5 Edmonton, Alberta 862,544

6 Ottawa–Gatineau, Ontario/Quebec 860,928

7 Quebec City, Quebec 659,545

8 Hamilton, Ontario 647,634

9 Winnipeg, Manitoba 641,483

There are about 15 million people above. And that's not a lot considering the numbers above include huge amounts of rural population.

Ottawa was amalgamated to include far, far reaching RURAL areas in the count.

Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa#Demographics

"In 2001, the population of the pre-amalgamated city was 337,031."

Actually, Toronto before amalgamation was 960,000 or so.

In my city (one of the real population centers of Canada that should be on that list, if I drive 10 minutes up north, I will be in an 'urban' area according the gov't, yet you will see nothing but farm fields. Is this urban to you? Sure it is. Because you believe what big brother tells you.

This is an example of how rural Canadians get sh*t on by the city people.

So in actuality, YOU ARE PART OF THE GROUP THINK. You just believe whatever the gov't tells you.

Use your head a bit. Do you really think that 80% of Canadians live in *REAL* cities? No they don't. God use your head a little bit. It's a large country with people everywhere.

Our city numbers are so low, they are not 'world class' and do not work in the favor of our crooked politicians trying to prove that we are something we are not.

Canada is largely rural, despite the fact they may be close to city centers or even included in the bogus stats. This is why they need more borders so they can represent themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if Quebec separation was simply an old fashioned rural vs urban dispute. I'm sure a lot of you guys would know. I never looked into the stats of which regions voted where. In my theory, I believe that unlike the USA, Canada has a 'false' representation of rural vs urban and this is the real issue of Quebec separation. Gun ownership is most highest supported in Quebec go figure. Yet it's Montreal leading the gun bans. Rural Quebec gets upset at this sort of CONSTANT OPPRESSION from the city idiots ('citiots'), and their answer is their own gov't. We have the BC separatists, the Wild Rose party now which is growing huge.\

Right now, jaded idiots from Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal including suburbs are running all of Canada. A Canada which I believe about 40%-50% rural in population (similar to the US).

Edited June 9, 2011 by mikedavid00

[mikedavid00]

To understand the core of the problem you have to look at it like this:

-In the US - California does not control or make decisions for Texas so there is no issues.

-In Canada - A group of people from a few cities who are elected by lower income immigrant/socialists are making decisions for all the citizens of Alberta and control of their life (no private health-care, lack of funding, firearms ban, economic restraints, climate change, federal immigration rules into Alberta creating crime, and now trying to ban electronic fences. etc). They use Alberta as some money tree, and then use that very same money to pay for the CBC to run propaganda in order to program Canadians to be anti-Alberta.

This is messed up.

As one person said, if a club was run like this, people would be revoking their memberships.

Myself, I live in a suburb of Toronto where 50% of the people are born outside of Canada. We have 800,000 *real* population here. So I'm not being biased but anyone in a rural Canada is being totally screwed by our house of commons.

The system is just messed up at this point.

[Sandy MacNab]

Yes, Alberta has been so trampled on recently. Seriously, you're only the seat of the government right now. There are so many things wrong with the perpetual victim complex of some Albertans. Altering the Senate won't make you happy, trust me.

You're wrong!

[nittanylionstorm07]

No.

Canada is not 80% city dwellers.

I am from Ottawa. Ottawa used to have a population of 300,000 people. That is the true population of Ottawa. Anyone from Ottawa knows how really small it is. It's common to bump into people everywhere you go. It's like a small town. What they did is amalgamate outwards and then including every outlying region to make Ottawa over a million people.

What the gov't includes as an urban centre are places like Granby, Quebec. Here is a picture of Granby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granby-Boivin-LV.jpg

Does that look urban to you?

Let's forget the gov't issued percentages and focus on reality and intelligence, something the left are incapable of.

There are two population statistics. Urban density, and then what the gov't WANTS everyone to believe - the fake bloated number.

I now live in a 'city' of over 800,000 people, and I almost never run into someone. It's very anonymous here. This place is way bigger than Ottawa and the population is accurate. Saying Ottawa is larger than my city is an outright lie as I've lived in both. Ottawa includes remote, rural area. A LOT of it.

Lets focus on the truth of the matter. Let's focus on the urban density stats of our largest cities. And no, Kitchener Ontario is not included as a real urban center. Let's take a look at population that include even the fake boarders (like Ottawa) and you will see

1 Toronto, Ontario 4,753,120

2 Montreal, Quebec 3,316,615

3 Vancouver, British Columbia 1,953,252

4 Calgary, Alberta 988,079

5 Edmonton, Alberta 862,544

6 Ottawa–Gatineau, Ontario/Quebec 860,928

7 Quebec City, Quebec 659,545

8 Hamilton, Ontario 647,634

9 Winnipeg, Manitoba 641,483

There are about 15 million people above. And that's not a lot considering the numbers above include huge amounts of rural population.

Ottawa was amalgamated to include far, far reaching RURAL areas in the count.

Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa#Demographics

"In 2001, the population of the pre-amalgamated city was 337,031."

Actually, Toronto before amalgamation was 960,000 or so.

In my city (one of the real population centers of Canada that should be on that list, if I drive 10 minutes up north, I will be in an 'urban' area according the gov't, yet you will see nothing but farm fields. Is this urban to you? Sure it is. Because you believe what big brother tells you.

This is an example of how rural Canadians get sh*t on by the city people.

So in actuality, YOU ARE PART OF THE GROUP THINK. You just believe whatever the gov't tells you.

Use your head a bit. Do you really think that 80% of Canadians live in *REAL* cities? No they don't. God use your head a little bit. It's a large country with people everywhere.

Our city numbers are so low, they are not 'world class' and do not work in the favor of our crooked politicians trying to prove that we are something we are not.

Canada is largely rural, despite the fact they may be close to city centers or even included in the bogus stats. This is why they need more borders so they can represent themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if Quebec separation was simply an old fashioned rural vs urban dispute. I'm sure a lot of you guys would know. I never looked into the stats of which regions voted where. In my theory, I believe that unlike the USA, Canada has a 'false' representation of rural vs urban and this is the real issue of Quebec separation. Gun ownership is most highest supported in Quebec go figure. Yet it's Montreal leading the gun bans. Rural Quebec gets upset at this sort of CONSTANT OPPRESSION from the city idiots ('citiots'), and their answer is their own gov't. We have the BC separatists, the Wild Rose party now which is growing huge.\

Right now, jaded idiots from Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal including suburbs are running all of Canada. A Canada which I believe about 40%-50% rural in population (similar to the US).

You are absolutely silly and completely don't understand the difference between the population of a city vs. an urban area vs. the population of a metropolitan area.

You listed the population of urban areas of Canada which is defined as the following:

The urban areas identified below are defined by Statistics Canada with reference to continuous population density, ignoring municipal boundaries. For example, a rural area within a city's limits may not be included, such as some areas within the city limits of Ottawa, while neighbouring cities that directly continue a city's urban core population will be included, such as Westmount and Montreal.

Completely silly. You should be looking at a metropolitan population. By the way, the purpose of a metropolitan area is to include all of the population around a city that commutes and does business in said city on a daily basis. That is an international definition, not some great conspiracy by Statistics Canada. The US has the same thing. I live in Indiana, but it's a suburb of Louisville, KY and is included in the metro. Oldham County, KY is very suburban/exurban/rural and is included in the metro population too simply because many commute from Oldham into Louisville.

Your complaint against Granby is absolutely ridiculous. Here are actual pictures of Granby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granby,_Quebec

Complete with their city and metro population.

You showed a picture of Lac Boivin http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac_Boivin_(Granby) in a complete and absolute disservice to the intellect of this forum community. I'm sure I could find several pictures of Red Deer, AB where it looks like no one lives there either! While you might complain that the metro is too small to be considered a metro or city or whatever the hell you are complaining about, again, the US (and the world, for that matter) does the same thing. Look at State College, PA for instance. It is a borough of about 40,000 with a metro of about 180,000. It is purely for statistical purposes and isn't some grand conspiracy.

The point is to show how many people live in a urban vs a rural area. Rural areas are not part of urban areas. There are tons of those. It is a fact that the population of Canada is significantly more urban than rural. It's the same in the US. It's simply because more people want to live in the city versus by themselves... and that doesn't mean that they are trying to say that there are more liberals versus conservatives if you are trying to imply that. I know of many liberal rural people and conservative urban people... election results can show that.

To understand the core of the problem you have to look at it like this:

-In the US - California does not control or make decisions for Texas so there is no issues.

-In Canada - A group of people from a few cities who are elected by lower income immigrant/socialists are making decisions for all the citizens of Alberta and control of their life (no private health-care, lack of funding, firearms ban, economic restraints, climate change, federal immigration rules into Alberta creating crime, and now trying to ban electronic fences. etc). They use Alberta as some money tree, and then use that very same money to pay for the CBC to run propaganda in order to program Canadians to be anti-Alberta.

This is messed up.

As one person said, if a club was run like this, people would be revoking their memberships.

Myself, I live in a suburb of Toronto where 50% of the people are born outside of Canada. We have 800,000 *real* population here. So I'm not being biased but anyone in a rural Canada is being totally screwed by our house of commons.

The system is just messed up at this point.

Your comparison to the US is absolutely baseless. You've compared the power of the most and second most populated states and sadly attempted to compare that to the power of urban vs. rural areas in Canada. That makes no sense. First, Ontario and Quebec are the 1st and 2nd most populated provinces... Alberta is 4th. There are 10 provinces, but 50 states. If you want to do a comparison, it would be like California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina (236 seats) together as a group deciding how things would go in Arizona, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, and Wisconsin (42 seats). Which they could, if they actually agreed. However, we have large cities where conservatives dominate, and we have large cities where liberals dominate. We have liberal rural areas and conservative urban areas. These balance each other out. In Canada, it's different because you don't have as many cities or populated provinces.... so naturally, the people in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor... where the vast majority of Canada lives... are going to have the greatest say in Parliament.

Also lol @ your immigrant rant.

[scouterjim]

As they should, the bulk of the population is in those two provinces. That's the idea behind rep by pop. The senate is intended to balance that out and curtail the tyranny of the majority. It's not quite fully functioning that way, but it's a site better than if we didn't have the senate.

there is a difference between listening to Ontario and Quebec, and blindly kissing their asses like ALL PMs do. If Ontario farts, the PMO jumps. If Quebec farts, the PMO offers all kinds of goodies to them.

[Sandy MacNab]

there is a difference between listening to Ontario and Quebec, and blindly kissing their asses like ALL PMs do. If Ontario farts, the PMO jumps. If Quebec farts, the PMO offers all kinds of goodies to them.

Ontario and Quebec have had a super abundance of flatus for as long as I can remember; anyone here remember Uncle Louis? The West, in particular, is getting fed up with the smell.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This is the primary reason TROC takes issue with Albertans, in one breath they complain about how they've always been treated like crap, and in the second breath they brag about how superior they are to TROC. It's kind of poor form and makes it hard to sympathize with what happened during the NEP.

Except a workforce that is derived from every region in the Canada, mostly the East, which you're so fond of reminding, how much better then them you are.

Just not a locally and self sustained work force.

So do all regions, it's not just Alberta that has been overpowered by ON and Quebec, its the Atlantic, Alberta and all the western provinces. I agree, we need to reform the senate, as it currently stands it's not functioning as intended. However, I think smallc is correct, senate reform will not be sufficient to make the dissenting Albertans happy. They see the power Ontario has, based on population and a robust economy and want that power too. Unfortunately oil money can't buy that kind of power.

I'd say you're an Anti-anything but Albertan. Again it's hard to want to listen to someone who's constantly touting how superior they are to you.

We never were, are not and never will be superior to anyone. I never have, do or will suggest anything of the kind. Albertans are just regular folks, no better or worse than the rest of the citizens of Canada.

Let me be very clear to all on this forum. The province of Alberta is not and does not whine. There are many of us that have, we simply must support out fellow citizens even if our politicians don/t. We will stand up and bark from time to time, as we please as our right to do so allows us.

I ask one thing from folks. Research the NEP. Find out what it did, how it was done and what happened in terms of social fallout from that political policy coined at the hands of the feds. If that doe not convince you we were abused by federal hands, check out how the Liberal government of the day dealt with our Premier of the day Bible Bill Aberhart. The province really hasn't had a fair shake if the truth was widely known. So it boils down to trust, not something the average Albertan has for the average politician of whatever stripe.

I am pro democracy. I favour direct democracy. I am against anything that I believe screws me over.

[Wild Bill]

Let me be very clear to all on this forum. The province of Alberta is not and does not whine. There are many of us that have, we simply must support out fellow citizens even if our politicians don/t. We will stand up and bark from time to time, as we please as our right to do so allows us.

Well, I'm one Ontarioan who actually HAS read up on the NEP! Actually, I've read several books on the historical record of central Canada screwing the West for years and years.

I realize that probably makes me a minority of one but I just thought I'd let you know that one exists, Jerry!

As for whining, you have to understand how some folks define "whining". First off, they have the blind assumption that Western resentments are exaggerated or even historical fabrications. Failing that, the "screwing" was only done for the good of the rest of the country. Moreover, Alberta has become successful only because of monies contributed by the rest of Canada.

Therefor, "whining" is defined simply as daring to disagree with this orthodoxy in any way, shape or form!

This attitude nicely removes any reason for guilt, don't you think?

[Smallc]

No, whining is complaining that you don't have any money when you actually have more than everyone else in the room.

[RNG]

No, whining is complaining that you don't have any money when you actually have more than everyone else in the room.

You have a horrible Napoleon complex.

[Smallc]

You have a horrible Napoleon complex.

I do? How is that?

[RNG]

I do? How is that?

In your opinion, does everyone have more money than you? And maybe if they do, they deserve it.

[jbg]

By the results of the survey most people think that a Province (or district) has the right to become a separate entity. Say, if Quebec voted to go their own way, Montreal & West Quebec area would then be able to split from the new entity and become a province of Canada.

Do it.

For my two cents, I am in favour of "the right to choose" ! If that is what folks want, to separate, then that is what they want.

There are several problems with a right to separate (spelling corrected from opening post). The rare times that a successful part of the country wishes to separate would create a "heads I win tails I lose" mentality. A federation is for bad times and good.

The more common form of separation is where a part of country (or more likely leadership thugs) wish to obtain access to lucre from international aid. I fear that a Quebec separation would follow this model; their hands would be out first to the U.S. and Canada to avoid "chaos on their borders". Then to the U.N. I think it should be made clear that independence means independence. The model where a Pakistan can obtain independence and then shake a cup at the world is unsustainable and wrong.

[Smallc]

In your opinion, does everyone have more money than you? And maybe if they do, they deserve it.

No, in fact I make more money than the average Canadian. Alberta has the highest GDP per capita of any of the provinces. To hear them complain about being screwed over when it comes to money is almost funny. Almost. And no, I don't think there's anything special about Alberta that says they deserve the money.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No, whining is complaining that you don't have any money when you actually have more than everyone else in the room.

Well then, according to you nobody in Alberta ever whined then. So why not just stop saying we did when according to your own definition we never did. We never complained about money, we got off our butts and went to work and earned it. By the way, just in case you forgot we (Alberta) have our own bank. Trust me it isn't always about the money.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, I'm one Ontarioan who actually HAS read up on the NEP! Actually, I've read several books on the historical record of central Canada screwing the West for years and years.

I realize that probably makes me a minority of one but I just thought I'd let you know that one exists, Jerry!

As for whining, you have to understand how some folks define "whining". First off, they have the blind assumption that Western resentments are exaggerated or even historical fabrications. Failing that, the "screwing" was only done for the good of the rest of the country. Moreover, Alberta has become successful only because of monies contributed by the rest of Canada.

Therefor, "whining" is defined simply as daring to disagree with this orthodoxy in any way, shape or form!

This attitude nicely removes any reason for guilt, don't you think?

Not........! hahahaha

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There are several problems with a right to separate (spelling corrected from opening post). The rare times that a successful part of the country wishes to separate would create a "heads I win tails I lose" mentality. A federation is for bad times and good.

The more common form of separation is where a part of country (or more likely leadership thugs) wish to obtain access to lucre from international aid. I fear that a Quebec separation would follow this model; their hands would be out first to the U.S. and Canada to avoid "chaos on their borders". Then to the U.N. I think it should be made clear that independence means independence. The model where a Pakistan can obtain independence and then shake a cup at the world is unsustainable and wrong.

I must once again agree with you JBG. Luckily for Alberta, we have NO DEBT, and pretty damned fine neighbors. We can pay our own way and fend for ourselves. I think it rather likely that Alberta would attempt to take the other western and possibly the northern folks with them to form a Northwest Canada. If we had our heads on straight we would likely seek some alliance with Alaska with hopes of perhaps a merger with the rest of America. Perhaps Northwest America would be more accurate.

Something needs to be done, that is for sure. What? is the ten million dollar question. Perhaps fortress North America is the best option for us????

[Smallc]

We never complained about money, we got off our butts and went to work and earned it.

Because no one else in Canada works for money. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. You think you're better than the rest of us.

[Smallc]

Something needs to be done, that is for sure.

Why? What's so bad now?

[jbg]

Something needs to be done, that is for sure. What? is the ten million dollar question. Perhaps fortress North America is the best option for us????

I'm beginning to think that Fortress (English-speaking) North America may not be a bad idea at all; but do you include Belize?

[Moonlight Graham]

Well then, according to you nobody in Alberta ever whined then. So why not just stop saying we did when according to your own definition we never did. We never complained about money, we got off our butts and went to work and earned it.

I don't have any problem with Albertans, but i wouldn't say Albertans "earned" or "deserve" the large amount of wealth the province has. Alberta happens to sit on a mother-load of oil. It's geographic luck.

Guess i have to give your province some credit for not whizzing it all away though.

[Evening Star]

i wouldn't say Albertans "earned" or "deserve" the large amount of wealth the province has. Alberta happens to sit on a mother-load of oil. It's geographic luck.

Yeah, Saudi Arabia has plenty of wealth too despite being a quasi-medieval theocracy and command economy.

People like to attack QC for relying on transfers from AB but I think it's one province that has actually taken real efforts to promote more knowledge-based industry and innovation, ranging from aerospace to science to even stuff like the video game industry and, of course, culture more generally.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Evening Star