They have no money. That is not to say that everyone lives in a trailer park, but many of the people who live where my parents live in rural Manitoba bear a striking resemblance to the cast of Deliverance.
Farming is not a wealth generating business - no matter how much money people have, they don’t tend to buy more bread. There are a shit-load of farmers in Sask and MB that farm in the summer and collect welfare in the winter because they don’t make enough to live on. There are standoffs between farmers and the WheatBoard (didja know there was a wheat board?) where farmers are trying to get the right to sell their products directly to the US without having to go through the WheatBoard to sell it in an attempt to make a bit more money.
Manitoba has one of the largest native populations in Canada, as well as some of the poorest reserves. Diabetes, FAS, crap healthcare, and substandard housing are standard on many Manitoba reserves. In face, Diabetes is considered endemic among the Manitoba native population.
The cost of living in the Yukon is about double of just about anywhere else because it costs so much to ship supplies in.
Yes, the rest of Canada (Alberta excepted) is jealous of Ontario’s wealth - however, it’s not the same. Alberta is a farming province - except all the farmers have oil wells on their property.
Imagine you’re a Sask farmer, bairly making ends meet, and your Alberta neighbour who does the exact same job and buys a new tractor every year and gets bailouts from his provincial government at the drop of a hat, for basically doint the same job. Perhaps you’d want him to share the wealth.
Further, many people in Canada really don’t like Toronto, but I don’t think money is one of the top reasons.
I think every have-not province has people that is jealous of the people in the have provinces. I mean - why do I deserve to get a cheque for $400, tax free, just because I live in this province, and Joe Bogs who lives one province over is worried about paying his heating bill because of shitty wheat prices, and gets nothing.
Why does my brothers family deserve a cheque for $1,600 just for living here, whereas a similar family in Manitoba gets nothing?
News coverage in Sask and MB tends to be “Prairie” coverage and Alberta is included in the Prairies - our good fortune is broadcast all over the airways in Sask/MB. It’s got to grate after a while.
I just repeated what you said - I’m not that surprised that people from Ontario don’t care.
Or was I not supposed to extrapoloate from your post that you were speaking for people from Ontario - oh wait - you also said this:
So I’m supposed to take your word on the opinion of most Ontarians, because you live there, but if a person who lives in MB suggest something, I should ignore it? Is that the idea?
So your musings are data, but those from people that live in Sask. are anecdotes.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Oh wait - no it doesnt.
Why do you not get that it wasn’t me that made this regional - it was you. I suggested that some people, from some part of the country may be jealous of Alberta and you responded with “Ontarians are not jealous!!” Dude - I never said you were.
Further, you really need to calm down. As I said, Toronto is a swell place. Manitoba is great. The Yukon is groovey. All the provinces are super-duper. Now can you please move on?
And, as all the bickering happened, the government fell. I don’t think I’ve been so worried about the outcome of an election in my life. Okay, the 2004 US election came close.
RickJay, I know you’re a Canadian nationalist. I know that to you, Canada is the best country in the world, the “Canadian values” we are built on are wonderful, the current deal between the federal and the provinces is the best compromise there could be, and so on. But this is really a question of feelings, and not everyone feels this way. I’m not especially nationalist. I think the idea of being “proud” of one’s country (or province) is rather silly. But still, and even though I work and study in Ottawa, I feel a greater attachment to Québec than Canada (even though I do feel some attachment to Canada). Why? Because Canada’s such a large country, with so many different people who don’t all share the same values. Maybe you’re able to feel at home anywhere in the country and you feel that people anywhere from Whitehorse to St. John’s are your people, but I can’t. As I said in my previous post, I was wondering if there was hostility towards Québec found in Alberta, and I was relieved to see that even if there might be, there is no hate. Because to me, Alberta might as well be a different country. (And before anyone asks, I’m not jealous of their oil, their wealth, their cattle, their conservative politics or their cowboy hats. :p.) I don’t feel any particular hostility towards Alberta (although I must admit that if I want to tell redneck jokes, I will make them about Albertans, but I know that’s stereotyping, please don’t be mad at me :o), but to me it’s a different country. One that I would like to visit one day, but if I ever study there, it will be like studying in the United States.
As for the part of my post you quoted, and didn’t seem to enjoy, those are all things I’ve heard. Maybe it was selective coverage by the media, but only recently I’ve heard about an historian who blames Québec for preventing Canada from being closer to the United States in the Ottawa Citizen, a newspaper that unfathomably seems to take pleasure in stirring dissensions between francophones and anglophones. It’s something I would expect from the Sun, not from a “respectable” newspaper like the Citizen, but they do it anyway. I didn’t buy the paper to read his comments, and when I checked their website it was subscription only, but I seem to recall that this opinion that is not entirely out of the mainstream of the Canadian right. As for my other comments (“whiners”, “take our money”), I’m certain you’ve heard them before. I’m sure you don’t agree with them, but you’ll agree that the idea is out there.
In a sense, I’d say that I agree with you that regional tensions are bad for Canada, and I think that many of them are built by the media. I mean, one of the things I like about living here is that I am exposed daily to several of Canada’s founding cultures. I see that Ontarians are people just like me, and Ontarians see that Quebecers are people just like them. But even here there are people who are inexplicably bigoted, and they certainly wouldn’t be better if they lived in a more homogeneous place, with no exposure to the other cultures. And I think that this is in many ways the doing of the media, who exacerbate potential regional tensions for the sake of a good story. See my comments earlier about the Ottawa Citizen.
On the other hand, I think that I would disagree with you about what Canada should be. You said in a previous post that you see Canada as a nation-state. I don’t. There are many different people in Canada, and very often the difference comes from geography and culture. Maybe they can live together in the same federal state. They’ve done it for quite a long time now, and you think it has been a great experiment, while I think that it has been an interesting one, but I don’t have any great emotional involvement in its continuation. (In other words, if it continues to work, great, if not, too bad.) But one thing that I believe is that a strong federal government, as strong as the Liberals would like it to be anyway, cannot correctly represent Canadians. With the amount of regional issues in Canada, I just don’t think that the federal government can take care of them; the provinces must step in. True, this might require the abandonment of your vision of Canada as a country united by the “Canadian values” where everyone is walking in step towards the same goal, but I claim that this vision is already not accurate in today’s Canada, and that clinging to it might be what ultimately destroys the country.
Ya know, something I’ve experienced both living in Quebec as an Anglo, and having Franco visitors from Quebec here in Alberta - it seems like a lot of Quebecers think that the rest of Canada doesn’t like them, or is hostile towards them.
I really don’t think this is the case - I’m sure some people will suggest that that hundreds, perhaps thousands of people I’ve met in my life that have no ill will towards Quebec, is not a representative sample. However, I’m willing to take it at face value, and state, for the record:
I don’t think that most Canadians, except for cranks, dislike or are hostile towards Quebec, regardless of what the media in Quebec says. Further, I think most Canadians, except for cranks, outside of Quebec would be really, really upset if Quebec were to leave.
Now, perhaps you don’t feel an afinity for Canada - but Canada feels an afinity for Quebec. While people make jokes about poutine, and Franglaise, and drinking a lot of Pepsi, I think most Canadians would be very sad if Quebec were to leave. This is because we kind of like you guys. Your differences are appreciated by many. You ARE a distinct society - every Canadian that’s been around for a while knows that Quebec is a bit different, and does things it’s own way - this is a good thing.
While Quebecers may be scared about losing their regional identity, many, many non-Quebec Canadians recognize and respect that regional identity, and would really be sad if it were to no longer be a part of our Country.
Finally, if Quebec left, Canada’s medal count at the Olympics would plumit. (It must be the snow and the maple syrup that grows em so sporty out there…)
Oh my. So much to deal with here. Actually, yes, I know of the Wheat Board. I also know of the Grain Commission, and maybe even the Canadian Dairy Commission. They all waste enormous ammounts of money. Really, does someone from the grain commission need to travel to London in Business class to further trade of our grains to England?
I’ll now be snipping quotes to address other points.
Then why do we spend money on Health Canada, the new Public Health Agency that was hived off of it, and INAC to provide the same services three times to the same people in Manitoba? Couldn’t we just deliver the services in a better way so that more of the end result money gets to the people who actually need it?
In case you haven’t heard, with the new price of oil for the last few months, SK is now a “have” Province.
Also, FTR, my Canada includes all 10 Provinces and three Territories. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I just think we need to get away from the “corporate culture”, for lack of a better phrase that the current government instills of being entitled to their entitlements, and so what if it burns a few million measly bucks (realistically, Adscam only nailed us for 10 million, high end). Gun registry is another story.
Wow mcott - thank you for supporting my positions so fully.
I think Queuing, who had asked the questions about Manitoba and Saskatchewan which I was attempting to answer, will appreciate your added info, particularly the link to the Wheat Board. Being that he’s never been west of Ontario, he mentioned that he didn’t know that much about the prairie provinces, and your additional insights and links will be helpful, no doubt.
Further, I’m sure he’ll agree that Health Canada should do a better job of providing for native populations on Manatoba reservations. Based on the obscene level of poverty I’ve wittnessed on these reservations, somebody needs to do something.
Finally, I was not aware that Saskatchewan was now a have province. I’m sure they’re enjoying their new found oil revenues, much as Newfoundland - traditionally one of the poorest provinces in Canada, has. I suppose transfer payments from these two provinces can be expected shortly.
Now I think I’ll go entitle myself to some entitlements, which I will entitle Entitlements for the Entitled soon to be coming out in hard cover for only $29.95.
No, no, no, no. Your assumptions are wrong. I’ll have to stop you there.
The idea that I think “the current deal between the federal and the provinces is the best compromise there could be” is just insane. It’s asinine. It’s also easily disproven if I wanted to bother to look up my own posts on the subject but that would take a long time and I doubt anyone cares to dredge them up.
Of course the current deal isn’t the best compromise there could be; in fact, it’s rife with problems. The “Canadian Values” we built on aren’t universally wonderful.
You are, again, conflating a belief in the value of this nation-state with an acceptance of every political status quo about it. That simply is not at all accurate. Believing the country is fundamentally valuable does not mean I think the way it currently runs is hunky-dory; LOTS of things need fixing. I don’t know how you could miss what I was trying to say, but let me use a counterexample:
Does everything in the Province of Quebec work perfectly?
If the answer to Question 1 is “non” should Quebec be disbanded?
Of course not, right?
Well, I think there’s a multitude of good points there. To be honest, I’m not actually that much of a nationalist either, at least not the way Canadians usually define that term. I’m not even a huge fan of the nation-state.
My opposition to this provincialism, or separatism, or whatever you prefer to call it is best illustrated, really, by your last sentence: “Canada’s such a large country, with so many different people who don’t all share the same values.”
Okay, point taken. Now tell me why the following sentence is not equally true:
“Quebec’s such a large country, with so many different people who don’t all share the same values.”
It’s just as true, is it not? Quebec, independently, would still be a very large country - larger than most of the countries in the world, more than twice as large as France. Quebecers would certainly not all share the same values. At what point do you stop separating? Would it be okay for parts of Quebec to split off? Are we going to get to the point where everyone’s their own state? I hope I don’t live next to Petoria.
I know this stuff is based on feelings. That’s what frustrates me. What I’m saying is that we, as a country, do need to get past that and start thinking in terms of practicalities. The PRACTICAL truth is that Canada, despite having its flaws, works amazingly well; I don’t know how anyone could deny that. The truth is also that attempting to break it up potentially opens a Pandora’s box of problems. I see almost no benefit whatsoever to separation; as you said, it’s all feelings. I suggest anyone who thinks that’s not a really, really, really awful idea just consult a history text and see how well “Feelings” work as a guide for national policy.
I understand your feeling that Alberta’s like a different country (I deleted it for brevity) but you have to consider one of the truisms of life: **People have a certain amount of bitching in them and have to get it all out before they die. ** Consequently, in any area of life, one’s perception of difficulty adjusts to match the circumstances. If Quebec were to separate from Canada what you would find, within less than ten years, is that the same sort of feelings would spring up about different parts of Quebec - I’m not saying you specifically, but generally in the political arena. General animosity towards Montreal in the province outside Montreal would increase; the animosity between Francophone and Anglophone Quebecers would increase; Quebec would have terrible issues with Indian bands in the north; and a dozen rivalries we’ve not yet heard of. If you don’t believe me, look around. Small countries can have big problems, and Quebec comes pre-loaded with lots of legacy issues.
We can’t account for every idiot out there. Sorry, but both English and French Canada will always have ignoramuses (Ignoramusi?) and the Ottawa Citizen is a terrible paper. To be honest I’ve never heard this before; in fact, my perception has always been that English Canadians have more problems with the USA than Francophones do. English Canada has that teenaged-boy-love-hate thing going on with the USA, and always has going back to the days of the Loyalist refugees. I cannot imagine Quebecois getting all frothed at the mouth over Americans the way Farley Mowat, Maude Barlow or Naomi Klein do.
After all, the single largest Canada-USA issue in the modern history of our country, the Free Trade Agreement with the USA, was a Quebecer initiative, most supported in Quebec, and still vehemently supported there.
The provinces must step in? A strong federal government? Dude, Canada is arguably the most decentralized country in the world.
I think, again, you’re mapping onto my words YOUR impression of what a country is supposed to be; ironically, despite saying you’re not a big fan of nationalism, it’s really you who is most married to the traditional concept of the nation-state - a relatively homogenous country unified by language, culture, etc.
I simply don’t buy into that.
I don’t WANT a country where everyone is walking in step. The magnificent thing about Canada is that it’s precisely not what you are describing; it is, and increasingly so, a state where citizenship is not defined along lines of culture, of nationalism, of language. You’re still thinking in terms of a nationalist, Peace of Westphalia view of a nation-state. You SAY you’re not a nationalist and yet you’re unconsciously assuming that the nationalist vision of statehood is the default option. I’m saying Canada is one of the first steps beyond that paradigm. We are in the process of constructing a nation where inclusion is based solely upon a willingness to work to make the state freer, richer, and safer, rather than along cultural, linguistic, or religious lines. I’m not saying we’re there yet, but we’re way ahead of anyone else I can think of.
I think, to be honest, that Canada’s way ahead of the curve. I don’t believe the future of humanity lies in old-style nation-states; why would it? I think what we’re doing here is working, and I think it has the potential - based on the objectively observable fact that Canada, relatively speaking, is a fuckin’ amazing place to live - to improve the lot of the entire world. Abandoning this experiment would improve nothing and would be a step backward. Way, way backward.
Alice_in_wonderland why do insist on insulting people’s intelligence in this discussion? It really brings nothing constructive to this discussion, and frankly makes you seem like a snotty little bitch. FYI, I am well aware of the Wheat Board, thank you very much. My ignorance of the Western provinces is in the day to day lives of people, not the institutions set up for the people. You really a thick headed person who keeps insisting on bringing personal insults into an otherwise intelligent discussion. I would ask you to please not assume what I do and do not find helpful. That being said I agree with you completely in post 85.
<sigh> I didn’t insult anyone. Why would I assume that someone who’s never been west of Ontario has heard of the wheat board? I would imagine the wheat board is not exactly a daily topic of discussion in Toronto. I could be wrong.
but whatever. However, regarding the “snotty little bitch thing” that one I’m going to have to report.
Just for the record, alice, Saskatchewan is currently a “have” province, and will be so long as oil stays above $40/bbl. The provincial economy is booming; unemployment in Saskatoon is sufficiently low that there’s scarcely a business along 8th St that doesn’t have a now hiring sign out front. Sure, the ag sector has been having a tough time of it for the past several years, but it is no longer the economic engine of the province. And since the epic drought at the beginning of the decade is well and truly over, and the worst of the BSE crisis seems to be over, even the ag sector is likely to become stronger.
do what you must, as I have said don’t do me any favours.
These are not insults towards me? You are basically calling me stupid saying I know nothing of Canadian Geography, as well as Canadian institutions. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are allowed to call people stupid repeatedly here, and get away with it.
However, as you have pointed out, this is not the place regardless of who started it or however many denials you make, I will limit myself to replying to you only when you bring something constructive to this conversation, so I would imagine we would have nothing to say to each other.
So is Saskatchewan making transfer payments to Ottawa then? Speaking as an Albertain, high oil prices does not a “have” province make - my understanding is that neither Saskatchewan nor Newfoundland are expected to make transfer payments, as both of them are in financially precarious situations, despite the currently high price of oil, and were the price of oil to drop sharply (granted, not likely) both Saskatchewan and Newfoundland would probably slip back to being have-not pretty quickly.
Is this not the case? Has Saskatchewan diversified enough that the price of oil is a more limited factor in their financial well being?
And before anyone says it, Alberta’s economy is still heavily dependant on the price of oil, however, after the bust in the early 80’s, steps were taken to diversify, and Alberta now has a strong technology base as well as oil meaning that we’re more easily able to withstand fluctuations in the price of oil.
Well seeing as I started this I might as well put in my two cents.
First I want to clarify that I don’t believe that Albertan separation is an immediate threat. What I feel is that if the current situation continues there is a possibility in the future (decades or more) that there can be a separatist movement. If there is a feeling of being kept down or ignored by the federal government there is a possibility for a desire to seperate. Quebec Separation is more the immediate threat and if it should occur then it sets the precedent that any province can choose to split from Confederation.
RickJay, that was a great post! I can’t agree with you more. Petty regionalism does hurt this country. myself, I have always believed we need a strong Federal government and a strong National vision. For years we have had shopkeepers running the government who talk of only dollars and cents and fail to give us the vision we can all share.
This nation is a great one. We have tried to incorporate all that is good in each of perspective cultures and back grounds. True, it is a bumpy road and full of pitfalls and we have made a few missteps. With our strong economy, the growth in the demand for our resources, the opening of the Northern passage and its resources, and the potential we show in innovation and invention we can be a Great nation. The only thing holding Canada back is Canadians and our imagined bogeymen (rivalries, others trying to keep us down out of their jealousy).
We are too concerned with what others think of ourselves, from both outside and inside the country, that we are afraid to make bold steps. We fear the minor differences around us that we forget the commonalities we do share. We have made a nation out of “the land God gave Caine”
Right now, we have no real leaders amongst our candidates but this election is still important for one reason, it is our way to take our democracy back.
Democracy only thrives on discussion, debate and more importantly passion. I detest the “Meh” attitude because that is a type of cancer which rots democracy. Without a passion you simply allow those things that turn you off politics to remain. Democracy dies with apathy. You don’t like what you see, then help to change it! Join a party, run for office, or simply go out do your research and make an informed vote.
Change is necessary, if only to send a message that Canadians will not accept corruption and that no politician no matter what affiliation should feel entitled. They must remember that in the end they must answer to the people. They have to fight daily to keep their jobs!
Will the Conservatives make it in a minority? Chances are not likely but the important question is will Martin survive a loss? Will this election be a sign to the Parties that we do in fact want change and accountable government with strong leadership and a vision for our place in the world? It should be. It should be one of those turning points where we can change the course of our nation. If you really love the status quo fine, but fight for that! Don’t just sit back and assume it will happen or grumble about it but do nothing.
This is going to be a nasty hard fought election (hence my hang on kiddies comment) and we should be happy for the fact that we can exercise our right to vote. Use it!
Just flipping through the paper today and saw three issues that in my mind will have an effect on voters.
The two Canadian hostages in Iraq. We don’t know how this is going to end up and I hope everything ends well and they come back safely. But I could definitely see this issue heating up over the Christmas break
Specifically, for Ontario voters, it’s the ongoing Ipperwash inquiry. Harnick’s testimony yesterday seemed pretty damning for the ex-premier and there are a number of Conservatives running who are ex-Cabinet Ministers and MPs from the Harris “regime”. This might cost them a couple of seats, seats that they were looking to pick up. i.e. Jim Flaherty in Whitby-Oshawa comes to mind.
Tying in the above bit about Whitby-Oshawa. The recent GM job losses in Oshawa will have an effect in the surrounding ridings and will probably cost the Conservatives their Oshawa seat.
Anyone else have any insight into local issues that might not get played up on the national scene?
I think it would be gross if someone tried to turn this into a polital issue, as opposed to a humanitarian issue, but it wouldn’t shock me if someone did.
By political I mean finger pointing - as in, “Those two people wouldn’t be there if your crap government hadn’t decided support/not support this that or the other,” etc, as opposed to “Holy crap we have to get those folks out now”.
I was thinking of the latter. If the Liberals even considered something like “It’s good that the Conservatives weren’t in power or else we’d have daily news about Canadians dying or being taken hostage.”, well they deserve to have their asses handed to them. But I don’t think they’re that stupid.
However, the issue of trying to get the hostages back, I feel would be fair game in an election.
Moderator’s Warning:Queuing, as you yourself point out, personal insults don’t contribute to the discussion. They are also against the rules (which I know you know, because you said yourself you read the sticky).
Don’t continue with this sort of behavior.
Moderator’s Notes: That said, this sort of snarkiness isn’t very helpful:
Politics is understandably a subject that gets people’s temper up all around the world, especially if you throw in regional rivalries (real or imagined), but some of y’all please step back and try not to make this thread so personal.
Kid_A, I deleted your duplicate post. Which, um, now makes your other post look kind of silly.
I don’t see this blowing up into an electoral issue unless someone does something really stupid. The Liberals don’t tend to be that politically naive, and they are about the only party I could see having something to gain from this. The issue of trying to get them back will probably fly under the radar, mostly because it is thought that I don’t see the media making a huge deal out of this. I believe it is thought by the powers that be that the most effective way for hostages to be released is through quiet negotiations. This is something the Canadian media will allow to happen.
Harris has already done quite a bit of damage to the conservatives in Ontario, however I believe the voters will keep provincial and federal politics seperate. While the evidence has been damning it hasn’t been overly shocking IMO. Harris being a jerk does not surprise ONT voters, not even 905ers. Jim Flaherty for reasons unknown to me, is fairly well respected in Whitby.
I agree. Oshawa, hotbed of Ed Broadbent NDP activity, will go to Jack’s camp.
As to other local issues, nope because these are the local issues for me.
Damn, I knew I shouldn’t have admitted to reading the sticky! However you are right, I am wrong, won’t happen again. I suppose I knew I was getting a warning, and I know I deserve it.
(It must be the snow and the maple syrup that grows em so sporty out there…)