Post anything to discuss and compare the two richest provinces in Canada. Is Ontario heading for a fall and have not status? Is Alberta running out of black gold? Do we need to end the "rape and redistribute" program that we call equalization so we can strengthen these provinces? Or for the rest of you poor buggers who live outside these provinces, feel free to bash away.
Ontario vs. Alberta?
- Thread starter Hank C
- Start date
http://www.iedm.org/main/show_editorials_en.php?editorials_id=363
Alberta's oil wealth no threat to national unity
Imagine how Canadians would react upon hearing that Arkansas was seceding from the United States because California was just too rich. Ah, those Americans, we'd say. Always coveting. What money-grubbers. Don't they know a country is about more than who has how much?
Yet, apparently, Alberta's oil wealth is a threat to national unity. Voices are increasingly being heard denouncing the rising chasm between the western province and the rest of the country. If this is allowed to continue, they claim, Canada will become dysfunctional and will break up.
Currently, Alberta is the only debt-free province in Confederation - the rest of us are not even close. It also boasts the lowest taxes and relatively high per-capita spending, in particular when compared with a province like Quebec, with its significantly greater population.
There is no case for the Canadian posture of moral superiority in this scenario. We are the ones being covetous and petty. And it makes no sense. For the wealth of one province can only benefit the rest of the country. And not simply by following the schoolyard dictum of being "fair" and "sharing," as in divvying up Alberta's oil revenues and handing equal portions out to each corner of Canada.
As though Albertans did not share already. The province has sent billions to Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and its Prairie sisters in equalization payments over the past decades.
Think also of job opportunities. In 2005, Alberta literally could not find enough warm bodies to fill all of its employment vacancies. Go west, young Quebecer! Go west, young Newfoundlander! You'll make a living - you might even prosper - you'll learn about another part of this country, and you can bring that wealth back to your neck of the woods. Of course, you will have to reach for this yourself; you will not have it handed to you. But as a result, you will gain valuable experience. It is not only about money.
And Albertans themselves are not simply acting in a vacuum. Alberta's affirming business climate attracts investors from around the world. This will, by extension, put other parts of Canada on the radar of those same investors. We can snipe about Alberta's windfall, or we can take full advantage of what it offers.
Ultimately, Alberta's thriving economy will also make its way to the rest of the country, in the form of products, investments, endowments, businesses and overall encouragement of the entrepreneurial spirit - something at times lacking in the rest of Canada. Corporations operating in Alberta will (and do) export initiatives elsewhere. It is not as though the province is sealed off. In many ways, it has a more open market than other Canadian provinces.
It is revealing to see where the covetous sentiments in Canada are most concentrated. A December Ipsos Reid/CanWest Global survey, asking Canadian voters whether Alberta should share its oil wealth with the rest of the country, shows, not surprisingly perhaps, an east-west split. A majority in the four western provinces says Alberta should do as it sees fit with its boon. (This includes Saskatchewan, experiencing a drain of talent toward its western neighbour these days.) More than 60% in the eastern provinces, including Ontario, say otherwise.
Regarding national unity, it is Quebecers who, ironically, were most likely to say Alberta's wealth posed a threat. Happily, though, a majority of Canadians overall (68%) don't think Alberta's wealth poses a threat to national unity. In other words, there may be wallet envy going on, but most of us are keeping it in perspective.
Let's hope that trend continues, for the great stacks of money piled up in Calgary and Edmonton now may one day no longer be there. These things are fluid. Who knows what the world will be paying a pretty penny for in 10 years? Montreal was, until not that long ago, Canada's industrial and financial capital. Fluctuating fortunes are, to a degree, the natural state of any country as large and diverse as ours. A cursory look at the history of the United States, or Australia, or indeed, our own history, should show us that.
It does not say much for our vision of a free and dynamic country if the wealth of one region can fracture us. Bribing Canadians into loving the flag and wanting to remain together by redistributing wealth will not do. We have to be stronger than that and happier for each other's successes, if Canadian unity is to have any meaning.
Alberta's oil wealth no threat to national unity
Imagine how Canadians would react upon hearing that Arkansas was seceding from the United States because California was just too rich. Ah, those Americans, we'd say. Always coveting. What money-grubbers. Don't they know a country is about more than who has how much?
Yet, apparently, Alberta's oil wealth is a threat to national unity. Voices are increasingly being heard denouncing the rising chasm between the western province and the rest of the country. If this is allowed to continue, they claim, Canada will become dysfunctional and will break up.
Currently, Alberta is the only debt-free province in Confederation - the rest of us are not even close. It also boasts the lowest taxes and relatively high per-capita spending, in particular when compared with a province like Quebec, with its significantly greater population.
There is no case for the Canadian posture of moral superiority in this scenario. We are the ones being covetous and petty. And it makes no sense. For the wealth of one province can only benefit the rest of the country. And not simply by following the schoolyard dictum of being "fair" and "sharing," as in divvying up Alberta's oil revenues and handing equal portions out to each corner of Canada.
As though Albertans did not share already. The province has sent billions to Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and its Prairie sisters in equalization payments over the past decades.
Think also of job opportunities. In 2005, Alberta literally could not find enough warm bodies to fill all of its employment vacancies. Go west, young Quebecer! Go west, young Newfoundlander! You'll make a living - you might even prosper - you'll learn about another part of this country, and you can bring that wealth back to your neck of the woods. Of course, you will have to reach for this yourself; you will not have it handed to you. But as a result, you will gain valuable experience. It is not only about money.
And Albertans themselves are not simply acting in a vacuum. Alberta's affirming business climate attracts investors from around the world. This will, by extension, put other parts of Canada on the radar of those same investors. We can snipe about Alberta's windfall, or we can take full advantage of what it offers.
Ultimately, Alberta's thriving economy will also make its way to the rest of the country, in the form of products, investments, endowments, businesses and overall encouragement of the entrepreneurial spirit - something at times lacking in the rest of Canada. Corporations operating in Alberta will (and do) export initiatives elsewhere. It is not as though the province is sealed off. In many ways, it has a more open market than other Canadian provinces.
It is revealing to see where the covetous sentiments in Canada are most concentrated. A December Ipsos Reid/CanWest Global survey, asking Canadian voters whether Alberta should share its oil wealth with the rest of the country, shows, not surprisingly perhaps, an east-west split. A majority in the four western provinces says Alberta should do as it sees fit with its boon. (This includes Saskatchewan, experiencing a drain of talent toward its western neighbour these days.) More than 60% in the eastern provinces, including Ontario, say otherwise.
Regarding national unity, it is Quebecers who, ironically, were most likely to say Alberta's wealth posed a threat. Happily, though, a majority of Canadians overall (68%) don't think Alberta's wealth poses a threat to national unity. In other words, there may be wallet envy going on, but most of us are keeping it in perspective.
Let's hope that trend continues, for the great stacks of money piled up in Calgary and Edmonton now may one day no longer be there. These things are fluid. Who knows what the world will be paying a pretty penny for in 10 years? Montreal was, until not that long ago, Canada's industrial and financial capital. Fluctuating fortunes are, to a degree, the natural state of any country as large and diverse as ours. A cursory look at the history of the United States, or Australia, or indeed, our own history, should show us that.
It does not say much for our vision of a free and dynamic country if the wealth of one region can fracture us. Bribing Canadians into loving the flag and wanting to remain together by redistributing wealth will not do. We have to be stronger than that and happier for each other's successes, if Canadian unity is to have any meaning.
Hank C said:
Okay.
Combinations of "provinces" and territories vs. the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)
Sorted by lack of GDP in province and territory combinations vs. the GTA
Code:
___________________________________________________________________
Population GTA GTA
GREATER TORONTO AREA July 1, Population GDP GDP
COMPARISONS 2004 <--Minus 2004 <--Minus
___________________________________________________________________
Atlantic 2,344,732 3,355,268 64,751 240,249
Manitoba+Saskatchewan 2,164,529 3,535,471 68,304 236,696
Atlantic+Territories 2,448,112 3,251,888 70,657 234,343
SK+NS+PE+NL 2,586,954 3,113,046 77,052 227,948
MB+SK+PE+Territories 2,405,770 3,294,230 77,575 227,425
SK+Atlantic 3,339,032 2,360,968 97,919 207,081
MB+Atlantic 3,514,961 2,185,039 99,887 205,113
MB+SK+Atlantic 4,509,261 1,190,739 133,055 171,945
Alberta (AB) 3,204,780 2,495,220 135,837 169,163
British Columbia (BC) 4,201,867 1,498,133 139,205 165,795
BC+Atlantic 6,546,599 -846,599 203,956 101,044
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) 5,369,309 330,691 204,141 100,859
BC+SK+MB 6,366,396 -666,396 207,509 97,491
BC+SK+Atlantic 7,540,899 -1,840,899 237,124 67,876
BC+MB+Atlantic 7,716,828 -2,016,828 239,092 65,908
BC+MB+Atl.+Territories 7,820,208 -2,120,208 244,998 60,002
Prairie+Atlantic (Atl.) 7,714,041 -2,014,041 268,892 36,108
Prairie+Atl.+Territories 7,817,421 -2,117,421 274,798 30,202
BC+AB 7,406,647 -1,706,647 275,042 29,958
BC+AB+NB+PE 8,296,586 -2,596,586 299,274 5,726
BC+AB+NS+PE 8,482,017 -2,782,017 303,678 1,322
Greater Toronto Area 5,700,000 0 305,000 0
BC+AB+NS+PE+Terr. 8,585,397 -2,885,397 309,584 -4,584
BC+Prairie+Atlantic 11,915,908 -6,215,908 408,097 -103,097
___________________________________________________________________Having to throw pretty much all of the Canadas but the rest of this:
Windsor-Québec City Corridor, 2001
Ontario Section
10,706,513 93% of Ontario's population
Québec Section
6,327,354 87% of Quebec's population
Total Population
17,033,867 57% of Canada's population
Source: Statistics Canada 2001 Census
_____
together to match "the GTA", British Columbia + Alberta + Nova Scotia + the Northwest Territories (over the GDP of PEI; but the University of Toronto contributes more to the GDP of the Canadas than PEI does and Toronto Pearson International Airport generated over five times the GDP of PEI in 2000 and employed more people than the entire July 1, 2005 population estimate for PEI -- in 2000) + Prince Edward Island + the Yukon Territory + Nunavat Territory combined, with over 2.8 million more people than the GTA alone has (less GTA, a negative number means more population than the GTA has); but only manages to generate $4.6 billion more in real GDP combined, with half again the population/workforce of the GTA, with a real GDP of $305 billion, one would expect half again the GDP of the GTA with over half the population EXTRA, or $150 billion, $100 billion, even $10 billion but the rest don't add up to even $5 billion -- with over half of the population of the GTA in extra population, generating shit. And GDP does not subtract "transfer payments" of any sort or "federal law enforcement" or any government subsidies of any sort.
BC and Alberta (finally; for "big bad Alberta" and only due to the wits and technology of others and oil/bitumen that happens to be there) actually pay their way and a bit more -- all of the Albertas pays out about a billion dollars less in revenues, the only ones that matter, never to be seen again in Alberta -- than the "municipality" of Toronto pays out in revenues never to be seen again, here. All of the BCs are down at less than $2 billion a year (in revenues paid out never to be seen again there) because it gets far too much back from the confederates as with ALL OF YOU outside the South Ontarios, let alone Toronto. But that's another two charts, below, from confederate department of "Finance Canada via South Ontario and particularly Toronto". And no wonder with the little picture above. But Toronto's main problem isn't with the confederates, it's with the "Ontario" feds who get the transfer payments ($22 billion a year on average short, per capita as they're all worked out as compared to what the total per capita in transfers and direct payments to persons (namely E.I.) is to the rest of the provinces.
The Ontario feds run half of that $22 billion "surplus" (for the confederates; it's a deficit here) on the City of Toronto alone; which isn't even one province when it could be quite a few given the above, in population and real GDP, which translates into revenues paid out, the City of Toronto alone is 18 provinces if Prince Edward Island is a "province".
Greater Toronto Area, July 1, 2004 and July 1, 2005 population estimate
Um, the single municipality of type City of Toronto population is beside "Toronto".
Code:
_____________________________________
Jurisdiction 2004
_____________________________________
Toronto 2,603,180
Peel 1,171,370
York 889,360
Durham 563,220
Halton 427,220
_____________________________________
Greater Toronto Area 5,654,350
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Jurisdiction 2005
_____________________________________
Toronto 2,613,900
Peel 1,204,070
York 925,030
Durham 574,950
Halton 437,260
_____________________________________
Greater Toronto Area 5,755,210
_____________________________________Sources: Statistics Canada estimates, 2004, and projections of Ontario Ministry of Finance via Ontario Ministry of Finance - Ontario Population Projections, 2004-2031, GREATER TORONTO AREA by 5-year age groups (with totals; thankfully).
Code:
____________________________________________________________________
Population Toronto Toronto
CITY OF TORONTO July 1, Population GDP GDP
COMPARISONS 2004 <--Minus 2004 <--Minus
____________________________________________________________________
Atlantic 2,344,732 258,448 64,751 64,249
MB+SK 2,164,529 438,651 68,304 60,696
Atlantic+Territories 2,448,112 155,068 70,657 58,343
SK+NS+PE+NL 2,586,954 16,226 77,052 51,948
MB+SK+PE+Terr. 2,405,770 197,410 77,575 51,425
SK+Atlantic 3,339,032 -735,852 97,919 31,081
MB+Atlantic 3,514,961 -911,781 99,887 29,113
SK+Atlantic+Terr. 3,442,412 -839,232 103,825 25,175
MB+Atlantic+Terr. 3,618,341 -1,015,161 105,793 23,207
City of Toronto 2,603,180 0 129,000 0
Alberta 3,204,780 -601,600 135,837 -6,837
SK+MB+Atlantic+Terr. 4,612,641 -2,009,461 138,961 -9,961
____________________________________________________________________Fear not, all the sources are coming up; even though they should all be in one place, like at "Canada's" statistical reporting agency, completely worthless (as with everything confederate other than the military and that has nothing to do with any pinheaded confederate politicians, it's despite them) StatsCan't/StatsCON around here.
The last two below City of Toronto are simply the next potentials in line, without doubling up anything (like adding two Newfoundland & Labradors), that are over the real GDP of the City of Toronto: to show why the combinations above City of Toronto (if "Municipality or City of" isn't specified it means Greater Toronto Area; or to strange people trying to un-dictate reality, by the iron-fisted dictators to City of Toronto -- the Ontario feds with jurisdiction -- not the confederates, Toronto CMA) end where they do.
With 1,015,161 fewer people, the "municipality" of Toronto still generated over $23 billion (another Newfoundland & Labrador) more in real GDP than the "provinces" of Manitoba (14 MPs) + Nova Scotia (11 MPs) + New Brunswick (10 MPs) + Prince Edward Island (4 MPs) + Newfoundland & Labrador (7 MPs) and all three territories (3 MPs), also known as eight of only 13 subnational jurisdictions combined and eight subnational governments to our none, four provincial governments and premiers to head to First Minister's meetings to our none, one city hall, and 49 federal electoral districts (FEDs/"ridings"), MPs/votes to City of Toronto's 25 and they're short over a million people combined (over the population of Saskatchewan, July 1, 2004: 994,300 and close enough to Manitoba's at 1,119,583) and population is how FEDs are supposed to be allocated in the House of Commoners.
Then, with only 601,600 more people than the City of Toronto has, Alberta ends up with 28 FEDs/MPs/votes. The 2001 Census numbers (decentinnal, first census after each new decade) are what last adjusted the seats on confederate mound:
Population Growth from Census 1991 to Census 2001
Sorted from most to least (rounds to nearest thousand by source,
500+ people rounds up to the next thousand, 499 or less doesn't)[/b]
Code:
_________________________________________
JURISDICTION Growth %Growth
Ontario 1,812,647 56.69
British Columbia 625,738 19.57
Québec 341,479 10.68
Alberta 428,807 13.41
Manitoba 27,583 0.86
Nova Scotia 8,007 0.25
Nunavat Territory 5,745 0.18
New Brunswick 5,498 0.17
Prince Edward Island 5,294 0.17
Northwest Territories 1,360 0.04
Yukon Territory 674 0.02
Saskatchewan -10,067 -0.31
Newfoundland & Labrador -55,070 -1.72
_________________________________________
TOTAL 3,197,695 100.00
_________________________________________
SUMMARY Growth %Growth
(ON+QC) Total 2,154,126 67.36
(ON+QC+BC) Total 2,779,864 86.93
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 1,043,569 32.64
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 417,831 13.07
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 446,323 13.96
(SK+MB) to ^ AB Total 17,516 0.55
Atlantic Canadas Total -30,526 -0.95
Territory Total 2,034 0.06
_________________________________________Statistics Canada - Last 100 years of decentennial census data per jurisdiction
Statistics Canada - Tables - Population and Dwelling Counts (2001 Census totals not rounded to the nearest thousand)
_____
"Ontario" gained over a million people from the 1991 Census but only picked up 3 extra seats. BC picked up 625,738 people, less than half of what Ontario gained and got TWO more seats. Alberta picked up only 428,807 and picked up TWO more seats and Québec picked up 341,479 and gained ZERO extra seats.
625,738 / 2 (seats, BC) = 312,869 per seat.
428,807 / 2 (seats, AB) = 214,404 per seat.
So why didn't Quebec pick up even one seat with 341,479 in population growth, let alone Ontario. If 214,404 people amount to an extra FED/MP/vote on confederate mound, then Ontario should have picked up eight seats after the 2001 Census -- not 3.
How many people it takes to get 1 federal seat in the "Commons"
2001, the fewer people per seat, the more people it takes just to get one "MP"
Code:
_____________________________________________________
JURISDICTION POP (2001) SEATS PER CAPITA
Ontario* 11,897,647 106 112,242
British Columbia 3,907,738 36 108,548
Québec 7,237,479 75 96,500
Alberta 2,974,807 28 106,243
Nova Scotia 908,007 11 82,546
Manitoba 1,119,583 14 79,970
Newfoundland & Labrador 512,930 7 73,276
New Brunswick 729,498 10 72,950
Saskatchewan 978,933 14 69,924
Northwest Territories 37,360 1 37,360
Prince Edward Island 135,294 4 33,824
Yukon Territory 28,674 1 28,674
Nunavat Territory 37,360 1 26,745
_____________________________________________________
TOTAL 30,099,618 308 99,009
(avg)
_____________________________________________________
SUMMARY POP (2001) SEATS PER CAPITA
(ON+QC) Total 19,135,126 181 105,719
(ON+QC+BC) Total 23,042,864 217 106,188
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 11,359,569 127 89,445
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 7,451,831 91 81,888
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 5,073,323 56 90,595
(SK+MB) to ^ AB Total 2,098,516 24 74,947
Atlantic Canadas Total 2,285,729 32 71,429
Territories Total 92,779 3 30,926
_____________________________________________________Source: Statistics Canada - Tables - Population and Dwelling Counts (2001 Census)
* Ontario Undercount correction from Statistics Canada in cooperation with the Assessment Office of the Ontario Ministry of Finance because ... "''Due to significant undercounts in southwest, southcentral, GTA, southeast Ontario CAs from the 1986 Census forward, the Assessment enumeration is now undertaken every three years by the local Assessment office of the Ontario Ministry of Finance in co-ordination with Statistics Canada''".
_____
The SUMMARY makes it all quite clear how badly Ontario, Québec and BC get ripped off. Alberta is in the prairies, BC is "Western Canada" not the prairies, so Alberta gets lumped in with what it's in: the prairies, and it helps them out because Alberta gets ripped off (truly the rest just have far too many seats), but 106,188 people is what it takes to get 1 FED/MP/vote on confederate mound (averaged; ON+QC+BC PER CAPITA / 3) compared to only 90,595 people per seat in the prairies and only 71,429 in the Atlantic Canadas.
The lower the number of people it takes to get a seat/vote on confederate mound, the better: for them. The more people it takes to get one seat/vote, the worse: for us.
If the Ontarios were equal with Saskatchewan in how many people it takes to get one FED/MP/seat/vote on confederate mound, it would (and should) have 170 seats: 11,897,647 (2001 Census pop of Ontario) / 69,924 (number of people it takes to get 1 seat/vote in Saskatchewan) = 170.151121217321663 or 170 rounded -- not 106.
The City of Toronto had 2,481,494 (from StatsCan't, same page above but Census Subsivisions (CSD) - Municipalities, so it's wrong/low). 2,481,494 (2001 Census pop of City of Toronto) / 69,924 (number of people it takes to get 1 seat/vote in Saskatchewan) = 35.488444596991019 or 35 seats for City of Toronto -- not 25.
But PEI is even worse: it takes more people to get a seat/vote in the Northwest Territories than it does in PEI. The NWT should have 4 seats, not 1. Its GDP is higher than PEI's as well. Either the NWT, part of it:
Northwest Territories (NT)
Code:
__________________________________________________________
Type 2001 1996 Growth Rank
Territory 37,360 39,672 -2,312 11
__________________________________________________________
No CMA
__________________________________________________________
CA (1 Total) 2001 1996 Growth Rank
__________________________________________________________
Yellowknife ........... 16,541 17,275 -734 113
__________________________________________________________44.3% live in the CA above
is turned into a province or PEI is turned into a territory. As a province it sets the "standard" for every other province. 33,824 people to get a FED/MP/seat/vote on confederate mound? We're going to have to expand that old lump of garbage cursed building by quite a lot if 33,824 people is what it takes to get one FED/MP/seat/vote on confederate mound.
Federal electoral districts/seats/votes per province/territory at PEIs standard of 33,824 people for one FED/MP/seat
Code:
_____________________________________________________
JURISDICTION POP (2001) SEATS PER CAPITA
Ontario 11,897,647 352 33,824
British Columbia 3,907,738 116 33,824
Québec 7,237,479 214 33,824
Alberta 2,974,807 88 33,824
Manitoba 1,119,583 33 33,824
Saskatchewan 978,933 29 33,824
Nova Scotia 908,007 27 33,824
New Brunswick 729,498 22 33,824
Newfoundland & Labrador 512,930 15 33,824
Prince Edward Island 135,294 4 33,824
Northwest Territories 37,360 1 33,824
Yukon Territory 28,674 1 33,824
Nunavat Territory 26,745 1 33,824
___________________________________________________
TOTAL 30,494,695 902 33,824
_____________________________________________________
SUMMARY POP (2001) SEATS PER CAPITA
_____________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 19,135,126 566 33,824
(ON+QC+BC) Total 23,042,864 681 33,824
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 11,359,569 336 33,824
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 7,451,831 220 33,824
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 5,073,323 150 33,824
(SK+MB) to ^ AB Total 2,098,516 62 33,824
Atlantic Canadas Total 2,285,729 68 33,824
Territories 92,779 3 33,824
___________________________________________________Now that makes some sense. The populations even sort properly with the number of seats and everything is equal. 352 seats is what Ontario gets; not 106.
Once that's fixed up then proportional representation of some sort could be considered and we might want to get the two E's of Equal and Effective around the Senate as well before bothering to elect that thing. The last I heard from the Harperites about it was 7 Senators per province and 3 per territory.
Now. Only Ontario, Québec, British Columbia and Alberta pay more into the "federation" than they take out of it, but it's really the Windsor-Québec City corridor paying all the bills and Québec is rather, um, socialist. So is BC and so are most of the Ontarios. "Gimme, gimme and gimme MORE!" It's not sustainable, it doesn't work, and those who call themselves "conservative" in the Canadas often don't have a clue what it even means other than in American terms, where they're rather screwed-up about the meaning due to religious interference, "christian fundamentalists" claiming to be conservative; which is irrelevant in the Canadas. It's one of the most secular countries on the planet.
Conservative = capitalist + fiscally conservative (fiscal means as few taxes as possible, staying out of our faces as much as possible, not overspending, not growing government anything but reducing it to reduce taxes to stimulate economic growth, compete with the world and to think about debt/deficit in the terms of expanding economies to expand revenue bases -- as opposed to raising taxes, which hinders/kills economic growth and our ability to compete -- in the real world, not the fantasy world of) socialist = Liberal. It's not true around the confederate "liberals", which should be called the New Progressive (as opposed to oblivious/stagnant or worse; regressive) Conservative Party.
A label does not a "conservative" or "liberal" make.
What is truly capitalist conservative in south Ontario, other than the City of Toronto (it's never had a choice in the matter and knowledge-based economies, where well-educated/skilled human capital, innovation, so tolerance, open-mindedness, the highest productivity possible, highest quality of life possible to KEEP the most valued resource there is: human resources, not natural resources, appears to be and is liberal around social issues because that's the way it is and has to be, in any city on the planet with a diverse "new economy" and labor force/population. Spending our own revenues, if we can ever get any of them, for the necessary infrastructure to keep up with the other "new economies" around the world is simply a necessity, it's not socialist at all; but is mistaken as such by those stuck in economies based on natural resources/primary industries, which is about all Alberta has).
But even assuming that all 7 Senators in the Ontarios and Albertas end up as capitalist fiscal conservatives, that's 14 votes to the Atlantic Canada's 28. Manitoba is socialist, Saskatchewan is socialist, Québec is socialist, BC is socialist, the territories are just plain desperate for handouts (as with the north Ontarios, north everything in the Canadas and not very far north) so with a Triple-E (Elected, Equal, Effective, and the last one is the most difficult to figure out; equal and elected means nothing if it's not effective), but effective at doing what? Stealing more and more of our revenues, refusing to pass any legislation without more and more handouts?
What else would happen? 28 Senators for the Atlantic Canadas to 7 for the Ontarios? The first order of business is to amalgamate the Atlantic Canadas into one province, Saskatchewan and Manitoba into one province, the Ontarios into southwest Ontario, south-central Ontario, province of Toronto, province of whatever the rest of the "Greater Area" wants to call itself, southeast Ontario ... southeast Québec, south-central Québec, province of Montréal (however it defines its boundaries), southeast Quebec, then the north Ontarios and Québecs merge up and become a province.
Population/structure of the Canadas, 2001 Census of Canada
Code:
_________________________________________________________________
Population
Region 2001 1996 Growth
_______________________________________________________________
Atlantic 2,285,729 2,333,764 -48,035
_______________________________________________________________
Québec City-Windsor Corridor 17,033,867 ?? ??
_____________________________________________________________
Québec Section 6,327,354 ?? ??
_____________________________________________________________
East ?? ?? ??
Central ?? ?? ??
Montréal and Adjacent region 3,724,576 3,623,206 101,370
West ?? ?? ??
_____________________________________________________________
Ontario Section 10,706,513 ?? ??
_____________________________________________________________
East ?? ?? ??
Central ?? ?? ??
Extended Golden Horseshoe 6,704,598 6,142,346 562,252
Golden Horseshoe ?? ?? ??
Greater Toronto Area* 5,081,826 4,628,883 452,943
Toronto MA** 4,263,759 4,682,897 419,138
Municipality of Toronto 2,481,494 2,385,421 96,073
West ?? ?? ??
_______________________________________________________________
Rest of Québec 910,125 ?? ??
Rest of Ontario 703,533 ?? ??
_______________________________________________________________
Prairies-B.C. 8,981,061 8,525,461 455,600
Calgary-Edmonton Corridor 2,149,586 1,913,339 236,247
Lower Mainland-south
Vancouver Island 2,706,873 2,523,734 183,139
_____________________________________________________________
(Total) 4,856,459 4,437,073 419,386
_______________________________________________________________
Rest of Prairies-B.C. 4,124,602 4,088,388 36,214
_______________________________________________________________
Territories 95,168 92,779 2,389
_______________________________________________________________** Toronto [C]MA ([Census] Metropolitan Area) is a worthless Statistics Canada classification.
The mess of the structure has to be fixed up first, which will require a re-write of the mess of constitutions and other hearsay, so scrap it, get out of our way and let us restructure. If we keep the label "province" (provincial means unsophisticated simpleton bumpkinly rustic rural bucolic yokel rube yahoo hayseed chawbacon hicks) they have to make some sense, have to have their populations evened out with exo-structures (like the GTA; administration areas, not legal entities; but they can be the same thing with one sentence in the new constitution) that make it simple and keep it flexible to adapt to changes.
We can't just throw darts over our shoulders at maps to set the boundaries of administration regions. They have to make sense economically and socio-economically/demographically because it leads directly to political priorities -- legislation and namely taxation and spending legislation -- which has to be marketed and accepted by a majority if we're going to claim democracy as opposed to elected dictatorships.
Anyone who looks at this and knows the economics<->socio-economics/demographics, even basically, along with the night and day differences in political (legislation, particularly taxation and spending goals and priorities) between urban, suburban, urban fringe and rural alone, could start debating about what goes and stays in it if it's ever going to end up as a real administration area that works together as some singularity at the political level.
Two views:
Greater Toronto Area, 2001, Census Divisions and Census Subdivisions
The numbers preceding census division (CD, "county") names "01-" are the provincial population ranks for the CD in total population (highest to lowest) of the 49 CDs in the Ontarios identified by the 2001 Census.
The CDs are sorted by Urban Population %, the numbers following CD names are the totals for the CD (see Statistics Canada - 2001 Census Dictionary, Internet version and/or Statistics Canada - Illustrated Glossary of Geographic Units for definitions of terms) then census subdivisions (CSDs/municipalities or First Nations/Aboriginal Reserves) in each CD (there are 47 different types of CSDs but not below; C=City, T=Town, TP=Township, R=First Nations/Indian Reserve) sorted the same way (Urban Population %, Descending) but within groups of 0-24.9% rural population, 25-74.9% rural population, 75-100% rural population.
Code:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Total Urban Urban Rural Rural
Name Type Pop Pop %Pop Pop %Pop
____________________________________________________________________________
01-Toronto Division CD 2,481,494 2,481,494 100.0 0 0.0
____________________________________________________________________________
Toronto ....................... C 2,481,494 2,481,494 100.0 0 0.0
____________________________________________________________________________
02-Peel Regional Municipality CD 988,948 955,514 96.6 33,434 3.4
____________________________________________________________________________
Mississauga ................... C 612,925 612,196 99.9 729 0.1
Brampton ...................... C 325,428 316,259 97.2 9,169 2.8
25-74.9% Rural Population
Caledon ....................... T 50,595 27,059 53.5 23,536 46.5
____________________________________________________________________________
04-York Regional Municipality CD 729,254 679,611 93.2 49,643 6.8
____________________________________________________________________________
Markham ....................... T 208,615 204,422 98.0 4,193 2.0
Vaughan ....................... C 182,022 177,918 97.7 4,104 2.3
Richmond Hill ................. T 132,030 130,654 99.0 1,376 1.0
Newmarket ..................... T 65,788 65,788 100.0 0 0.0
Aurora ........................ T 40,167 38,545 96.0 1,622 4.0
25-74.9% Rural Population
Georgina ...................... T 39,263 27,621 70.3 11,642 29.7
East Gwillimbury .............. T 20,555 13,968 68.0 6,587 32.0
King .......................... TP 18,533 9,622 51.9 8,911 48.1
Whitchurch-Stouffville ........ T 22,008 11,073 50.3 10,935 49.7
75-100% Rural Population
Chippewas of Georgina
Island First Nation .......... R 273 0 0.0 273 100.0
____________________________________________________________________________
05-Durham Regional Municipality CD 506,901 450,792 88.9 56,109 11.1
____________________________________________________________________________
Oshawa ........................ C 139,051 136,585 98.2 2,466 1.8
Whitby ........................ T 87,413 84,739 96.9 2,674 3.1
Pickering ..................... C 87,139 82,637 94.8 4,502 5.2
Ajax .......................... T 73,753 72,509 98.3 1,244 1.7
Clarington .................... T 69,834 53,466 76.6 16,368 23.4
25-74.9% Rural Population
Uxbridge ...................... TP 17,377 8,540 49.1 8,837 50.9
Brock ......................... TP 12,110 5,072 41.9 7,038 58.1
Scugog ........................ TP 20,173 7,244 35.9 12,929 64.1
75-100% Rural Population
Mississaugas of
Scugog Island ................ R 51 0 0.0 51 100.0
____________________________________________________________________________
11-Halton Regional Municipality CD 375,229 352,117 93.8 23,112 6.2
____________________________________________________________________________
Burlington .................... C 150,836 146,997 97.5 3,839 2.5
Oakville ...................... T 144,738 143,621 99.2 1,117 0.8
Halton Hills .................. T 48,184 39,277 81.5 8,907 18.5
25-74.9% Rural Population
Milton ......................... T 31,471 22,222 70.6 9,249 29.4
____________________________________________________________________________
MUNICIPALITY OF TORONTO 2,481,494 2,481,494 100.0 0 0.0
____________________________________________________________________________
REST OF GTA 2,600,332 2,438,034 93.8 162,298 6.2
____________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 5,081,826 4,919,528 96.8 162,298 3.2
____________________________________________________________________________And population growth of the same (real growth, 2001 pop - 1996 pop, not percentages that only distort) and percentages where they belong: the percentage of the total population each municipality has of the "GTA" thing:
Population Counts, Land Area, Population Density, Greater Toronto Area, Census Divisions
and Census Subdivisions (Municipalities), 2001 and 1996 Censuses - 100% Data
Code:
___________________________________________________________________
Population % of
Name Type 2001 1996 GROWTH GTA*
___________________________________________________________________
Ontario 11,410,046 10,753,573 656,473 N/A
___________________________________________________________________
01-Toronto Division 2,481,494 2,385,421 96,073 48.83
___________________________________________________________________
Toronto ................... C 2,481,494 2,385,421 96,073 48.83
___________________________________________________________________
02-Peel Regional Municipality 988,948 852,526 136,422 19.46
___________________________________________________________________
Mississauga ............... C 612,925 544,382 68,543 12.06
Brampton .................. C 325,428 268,251 57,177 6.40
Caledon ................... T 50,595 39,893 10,702 1.00
___________________________________________________________________
04-York Regional Municipality 729,254 592,445 136,809 14.35
___________________________________________________________________
Markham ................... T 208,615 173,383 35,232 4.11
Vaughan ................... C 182,022 132,549 49,473 3.58
Richmond Hill ............. T 132,030 101,725 30,305 2.60
Newmarket ................. T 65,788 57,125 8,663 1.29
Aurora .................... T 40,167 34,857 5,310 0.79
Georgina .................. T 39,263 34,777 4,486 0.77
Whitchurch-Stouffville .... T 22,008 19,835 2,173 0.43
East Gwillimbury .......... T 20,555 19,770 785 0.40
King ...................... TP 18,533 18,223 310 0.36
Chippewas of Georgina
Island First Nation ...... R 273 201 72 0.01
___________________________________________________________________
05-Durham Regional Municipality 506,901 458,616 48,285 9.97
___________________________________________________________________
Oshawa .................... C 139,051 134,364 4,687 2.74
Whitby .................... T 87,413 73,794 13,619 1.72
Pickering ................. C 87,139 78,989 8,150 1.71
Ajax ...................... T 73,753 64,430 9,323 1.45
Clarington ................ T 69,834 60,615 9,219 1.37
Scugog .................... TP 20,173 18,837 1,336 0.40
Uxbridge .................. TP 17,377 15,882 1,495 0.34
Brock ..................... TP 12,110 11,705 405 0.24
Mississaugas of
Scugog Island ............ R 51 ¶ ¶ 0.00
___________________________________________________________________
11-Halton Regional Municipality 375,229 339,875 35,354 7.38
___________________________________________________________________
Burlington ................ C 150,836 136,976 13,860 2.97
Oakville .................. T 144,738 128,405 16,333 2.85
Halton Hills .............. T 48,184 42,390 5,794 0.95
Milton .................... T 31,471 32,104 -633 0.62
___________________________________________________________________
Municipality of Toronto 2,481,494 2,385,421 96,073 48.83
___________________________________________________________________
Rest of GTA 2,600,332 2,243,462 356,870 51.17
___________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 5,081,826 4,628,883 452,943 100.00
___________________________________________________________________* "% of GTA" is the 2001 population total as a percentage of the population total of the Municipality of Toronto + Rest of GTA; the TOTAL 2001 population of the entire "GTA thing."
Derived from: Statistics Canada - Population, Dwellings and Geography - Data Tables - Census Subdivisions (CSDs) - Municipalities
Date modified (by source): 2002-07-16
Last updated/checked (by me): 2005-02-18
_____
The next step is to remove the existing administration boundaries and to simply sort by total urban population (which also sorts by total rural population; the totals but the percentages of the total urban/rural populations are the same as the totals when sorted by the totals) and to yank out the CDs/"counties" of type Division (leave it up to politicians to not only create a divisive mess, but to actually use the word as a label; District would be more appropriate for all of them) and Regional Municipality.
Feel free. This post is going to be long enough as is.
The population growth of the rest of "Greater Area" is higher but it should be. The land area has to be added to the "Counties" that should all be called Districts (or suburbs of Toronto but it has to be trimmed down).
They have lots of land and are sparsely populated, population density, which is simply the 2001 population divided by the land area, in square km, within the boundaries of the county of type Regional Municipality or "county" of type nothing in the Municipality of Toronto's case:
Greater Toronto Area Population Density by Census Division
Code:
________________________________________________________________
Land
Population Area Population
Name 2001 1996 Growth Km2 Density
________________________________________________________________
Toronto 2,481,494 2,385,421 96,073 629.91 3,939.4
Peel Region 988,948 852,526 136,422 1,241.99 796.3
York Region 729,254 592,445 136,809 1,761.64 414.0
Durham Region 506,901 458,616 48,285 2,523.48 200.9
Halton Region 375,229 339,875 35,354 967.04 388.0
______________________________________________________________
Toronto 2,481,494 2,385,421 96,073 629.91 3,939.4
______________________________________________________________
Rest of GTA 2,600,332 2,243,462 356,870 6,494.15 400.4
______________________________________________________________
TOTAL 5,081,826 4,628,883 452,943 7,124.06 713.3
______________________________________________________________From here you can get at just about anything. In this case (or if you want to see the square kilometers and population density of anything, it doesn't have to be via this link below but it is because the above are Census Divisions) Census Divisions (CDs) - View by Province or Territory - Ontario - Show land area, population density and population rank for this table. It's a little link at the top-left of the table that shows up on all of them.
Now weed through the mess as is with the default "numerical sort order" of alphabetical order or click on a heading you want to sort by (Population, 2001 in this case makes it easier), which will then sort ascending, from lowest to highest to increase your frustration as much as possible after having to go through all of the above just to get a few land area numbers.
Once you click on a heading link to sort by that heading you'll see up and down arrows next to the column you sort by. Click on the down arrow to sort by descending, highest to lowest (usually; always around this insult to the word "interface", but not always at the entire StatsCan't mess).
This: Statistics Canada - Population and Dwelling Counts is the main link/index. Need help with the terms? Look at the screen and you (as usual, whomever is browsing, it's not an email or pm) might find a link called "Need help?"
Unfortunately it hasn't been working for quite a while and I'm not about to help any confederates with anything but letting them prove how hopelessly worthless they are so we can get rid of them and restructure.Statistics Canada - Illustrated Glossary of Geographic Units has simple explanations, "pictures" to explain things basically, little tutorials and more detailed explanations about most of the terms. Fifteen minutes with it (and a Bookmark if you insist; I have no clue how or where I found it but I keep my links in text files, like the copy/pastes above after turning the worthless HTML tables into comma-separated-value (.csv) files, importing to Excel, checking their work because they screw up quite often and changing worthless percentages into real numbers and adding proper percentages that mean something, then save those as text files and format them with very basic HTML, then run my own software on them to convert the markup to whatever format; and no, the software isn't available, it's too much work to create general purpose everything for public use as opposed to just changing the code and recompiling new executables as I need them) and you'll be able to pretend you're an expert; around populations anyway.
The usual "secret" around everything that seems complicated on the Web is to actually look at the screen, pay attention to what links, buttons, etc. are available and use them. You can always hit the back button, no harm done; other than getting the hang of what to click on and where and when and why.
No lookee no findee.
And there's the Statistics Canada 2001 Census Dictionary, Online Version (index) with all terms and links to explanations.
What's a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) and/or Census Agglomeration (CA)? Use the Illustrated Glossary above first, it's much better, but how difficult is this?
Source: Statistics Canada - 2001 Census Dictionary, Online Version (index)Statistics Canada said:
It's not difficult. It's just difficult to find everything but the number of links in this post alone, and knowing how to debunk statistics and now that you know how to list every Census Subdivision (CSD; a municipality whether it is or not, for statistical reporting purpose and "not" applies to First Nations/Aboriginal reserves and other unorganized areas; otherwise it means municipality but there are 46 different types based on confederate, provincial and territorial legislation -- political statistics, which is why the thing sucks, but there really isn't much of a choice.
Go to the usual link (Statistics Canada - Population and Dwelling Counts and take a look at the population "% change" of every municipality in the Canadas to know why it's worthless if you haven't figured it out already. 100,000% of 0 is still zero. Which municipality in the Canadas had the highest "% change" from the 1996 to 2001 Census?
Hit the link above, then Census Subdivisions (CSDs) - Municipalities, then View Nationally (All Census Subdivisions [CSDs]).
Now click on the "% change" link to sort by that column to end up with the usual, ascending; click on the down arrow to get descending (highest to lowest) and skip any Type you don't know the meaning of. And also take a look at the shortforms they're using, wasting our storage space and bandwidth. Is there something wrong with the official 2-letter shortforms, like (BC), (AB), (SK), (MB), (ON), (QC), (NS), (NB), (PE), (NL), (YT), (NT), (NU)? I wonder how many bytes of storage they'd save us just on this, um, 224 pages alone by using the proper 2-letter shortforms?
Code:
________________________________________________________________
Total
Population private
% dwellings
Name Type[1] 2001 1996 change 2001
________________________________________________________________
Kshish 4 (B.C.) R 58 1 5700.0 20
________________________________________________________________There you have it, the winner -- with a whopping 5,700.0 percent change in population in only five years, from 1996 to 2001! Stop the presses, this is a major political and economic shift in ... BC, I mean B.C. (looks like Before Christ as in 1200 B.C. to me).
Don't bother with the real numbers, the percent change is all that matters -- exactly the games Alberta politicians and "newz media" reporters use to beat their chests; certainly in any comparisons to the Ontarios, Quebecs or BCs about anything.
So what if only one person returned the 1996 Census form or whatever, agreed to cooperate with enumerators in 1996, and either a whole 57 people moved there, which will throw our politics and economy into CHAOS now due to the 5,700.0 percent change in population. Or 57 more people actually cooperated in the 2001 Census. But it's not a municipality, it's a First Nations/Aboriginal ("Indian") reserve.
So on and so forth, no clue or care what an "LGD" is (if it had even 50,000 people in it, it might be worth finding out what "LGD" means but with whatever/wherever a "Mystery Lake (Man.) LGD" is a mystery to me (and please don't explain it -- no one cares and it's not some 'slight' to "Mystery Lake" or certainly First Nations/Aboriginal Peoples; it's just statistically irrelevant, not totally irrelevant and these are statistics, ways of looking at things without emotions getting in the way), with a whole 79 people in it -- the population of one bus (without a "trailer" compartment) during the rush hours -- who gives a crap? But don't forget to report that "% change" in population, 1,480.0 percent. Take that, Alberta.
Oh. Due to brilliant interface design, you can't get to page 2 to try to find a real municipality (not that the ones on page 1 "don't matter" -- they're just not municipalities and would resent being called municipalities, which is why Census Subdivision/CSD is the label used instead of municipality); not from the bottom. Look to the top-left and don't click on the arrow, it doesn't work, click on "Next".
Here we are, the first municipality, the municipality of all municipalities with the highest population % change in the Canadas:
Code:
________________________________________________________________
Total
Population private
% dwellings
Name Type[1] 2001 1996 change 2001
________________________________________________________________
Lac-Saint-Joseph (QC) V 184 83 121.7 331
________________________________________________________________127.7 % change in population in only 5 years. No municipality in the Canadas can claim that but ... um, the infamous "Lac-Saint-Joseph, Québec." Nevermind the real numbers, 101 is the real population growth but if StatsCON did that around everything then there would be no "Canada" for it to report on: and only due to the insult to the word "structures" in this mess. It's high time to redraw the political map, but with exo-structures like the, well not like the but something that actually works; there is no "Greater Toronto Area" as any legal entity or any other entity politically. It's an administration area with zoos for administration and the "Ontario" and confederate feds ruling with iron fists.
Nothing can legally incorporate in the "Greater Toronto Area" -- because it doesn't exist as a legal entity.
Changing all legislation that refers to legally incorporated entities (provinces, territories, perhaps counties by whatever name, municipalities, etc.) would be a pointless waste of time. All any exo-structure has to do, to be a legal entity, is add one clause such as "Toronto City-State [District, whatever] consists of [list every legal entity that exists in it in existing legislation]" and that's that; much like with the British North America Act, 1867, which can also be legally referred to as the Constitution Act, 1867 because the Constitution Act, 1985 says so.
Nothing has to reincorporate, no existing legislation has to be changed (until there's time to get around to it) and everything below that level is automatically covered legally as well, without having to change a thing; other than how they operate (it operates as one entity) externally to the union, which the new union constitution explains, I mean will explain, quite clearly.
As is, I have no clue why anyone in the Albertas, let alone BCs, Québecs, Ontarios, would want to try to figure out what the confederate Senate even IS (most Senators don't even know), let alone have bizarre elections for Senators who do nothing, have no power to do anything; the thing should be scrapped.
How Alberta's beliefs that it is being "ripped off" by the confederates manages to translated into, "So let's give every province the same number of Senators so that we only have 7 votes against the Atlantic Canadas with 28 votes" ... and Quebec, who knows what in the Ontarios and PEI gets 7 Senators, each territory gets 3 Senators and the City of Toronto gets how many? In population share it gets 4.8 Senators, but Senates tend to be around to ignore population shares and if the thing has any real power (Triple-E, Equal, Elected, Effective being the tricky part) then for certain the House of Representatives, not "Commons", has to be fixed up as per above, because assemblies do represent population shares and PEI only has 4 MPs because of the existing formula around Senators and because the British North America Act, 1867, states that no province can have fewer MPs than Senators.
Drop that with a Single-E Senate, Equal, and the (co-equal as in the U.S.?) House of Reps has to represent equally per capita, with the chart above, if PEI keeps 4 House Reps (MPs, whatever) then Ontario gets 352 House Reps/MPs, based on exactly what adjusts the counts; the results of the last decentennial (2001) Census.
What if the Senate remains the "Upper House" and like Australia's Senate can kill bills stone dead with a simple majority vote? Australia's Senate is not equal or elected, because it would destroy the country if it were and had those powers: and they don't have the ridiculous mess of "transfer systems" this mess does either, which would have to go outright with a real Triple-E Senate as an Upper House that could overrule the "Lower House."
Frankly, it doesn't seem to me that Albertans or anyone else in the Canadas even know what a co-equal (with a House of Representatives; both houses have to agree, neither can override the other) Triple-E Senate even is.
But that's another paper.
It's just going to take a major restructuring of the (political) insults to the words "structures" and "systems" in this mess and doses of reality to separate real isolation and "unfairness" from the loads of shite you've all been listening to from your politicians and "newz media" (they market stories to sell ad space for as much money as possible and nothing more; there is no truth in "the news" and no news in the truth) for generations. It's time to snap out of it. It was time in 1989 when the U.S.-Windsor-Quebec City corridor (but all of the Canadas due to it) free trade agreement was signed, it was time a decade before that on back to 1885 when the last spike of the national rail line was struck, connecting B.C. to the rest.
B.C. (south) made something out of it, the rest didn't bother to use it for anything but shipping raw/semi-processed volatile commodities around with. Your choice and we don't elect your local or provincial governments. You have yourselves to blame and the politicians you elected (for your own jurisdictions, this is a capitalist country and if you can't compete around capitalism, you die; unless a federal government steals the revenues from the real capitalists to hand to the losers without a clue or care; which amounts to penalizing economic success to reward failure and with zero accountability and you get what you reward -- which is another reason the Canadas is such a mess; and another reason even an elected Senate (Single-E) is nothing but a waste of our revenues because it will not be equal or effective; we have more than enough of that around the mess of "transfer payments").
No one and nothing in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor owes anything in the Canadas a cent or an apology for being better capitalists. Quite the opposite. You all have plundered our revenues, held our economies back and after 100 years of it we look around and see nothing but hundreds of billions of dollars gone out of our economies that might as well have been burned; as the charts above, just around Toronto, quite clearly document. But there's lots more.
Sources for the first two charts above:
Population Sources, July 1, 2004
Ontario and all other provinces/territories 2004 populations: Statistics Canada - The Daily, December 21, 2005 - July 1, 2004 population estimates
Last modified (by source): 2005-12-21
Greater Toronto Area and Municipality of Toronto 2004 population: Statistics Canada estimates, 2004, and projections of Ontario Ministry of Finance via Assessment Office of the Ontario Ministry of Finance - Ontario Population Projections, 2004-2031, GREATER TORONTO AREA
Toronto CMA (or any other in the Canadas, 2001-2005): Statistics Canada - Population of census metropolitan areas (2001 Census boundaries) - July 1, 2004
Last modified (by source): 2005-12-21
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-07
† University of Toronto: Total Faculty - Princeton Review (no date; looks like a 2001 "population" number according to the U of T and other publications)
Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Sources, 2004
Provincial/Territorial GDP (all): Statistics Canada - Real gross domestic product, 2000-2004
Date modified (by source): 2006-01-05
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-07
1. Ontario (total) DoF is a discrepancy between what Statistics Canada (above) claims is the real 2004 GDP of Ontario and what the Ontario Department of Finance knows it is, and has worked with Statistics Canada on, but Statistics Canada is confederate, slow, not of much use to Ontario (south, with 93% of the population of the Ontarios, and really south, not like north and south states in the U.S. that are somewhat split down the middle; you couldn't even see the real south Ontario on a map of North America). So we pay for real statistics and the Ontario Department of Finance pays for Statistics Canada and we pay for the Ontario DoF and pay very little attention to the confederates and particularly Statistics Canada, which is called StatsCan for short usually but is called StatsCON around here because it's all it does: con "Canadians" into Canadiana propaganda/lies.
The Ontario Department of Finance pays to get updated census data every three years due to constant undercounts by StatsCON that were totally out of control by the 1986 Census, so we have to pay for our own censuses, and for StatsCON, they're constantly low-balling everything in "Ontario" (south, there is nothing in the north worth mentioning; with regard to economics<->socio-economics; there's plenty to mention around the people, or being out in the middle of nowhere all of 60 miles north of Toronto you can get in a canoe and easily think that you're the first person to discover what you're seeing. The near north, which is currently considered as part of the south, by the "Ontario" and confederate feds, not by us, is good for tourism, pre-processing of natural resources, the far north is good for tourism if you're into real wilderness and for natural resources; which were worth less than 2% of the GDP of the Ontarios in 2004, which doesn't subtract subsidies sent north by the "Ontario" feds from the south and it's pretty much the same story, minus the pre-processing of natural resources/primary in all of the Canadas other than in the other end of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and the Vancouver region, Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island.
One has to be very, well being careful around StatsCON won't help, but being knowledgeable will or you'll end up with the distorted propaganda/lies that most "Canadians" believe.
Sources: Statistics Canada and Ontario Ministry of Finance via Ontario Ministry of Finance - Annex VI: Economic Data Tables - 2005 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review - Ontario, Gross Domestic Product (real GDP, billions of chained $1997, 2004) and G7 economic growth comparisons
** Toronto CMA and City of Toronto: Toronto Economic Development Department - PDF Economic Indicators, Real Gross Domestic Product (chained $1997 bil.), 2004)
Release Date (by source): April, 2005
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-07
† U of T - [u
First, Alberta's economy is running on oil. The second it runs out, Alberta is going to go back to the shitty province it was before the recent energy boom. At least with Ontario, they have a whole bunch of different things which are fueling their economy. And second, Ontario is much nicer than Alberta.
Alberta's population added over 25,000 people in the fourth quarter of 2005 (oct 1 - dec 31), which was the strongest population growth in Canada. During the same period the population of all other province and territories in Canada grew by 25,000 combined. Alberta's population growth was five times the national avg.
A huge amount of Alberta population growth is because of inter-provincial migration, and its not just our welfare friends from Sask and Manitoba who are coming. In fact the highest numbers of people are coming from Ontario and BC.
A huge amount of Alberta population growth is because of inter-provincial migration, and its not just our welfare friends from Sask and Manitoba who are coming. In fact the highest numbers of people are coming from Ontario and BC.
This story is about the massive "industrial Heartland" being build just north-east of Edmonton.
FORT SASKATCHEWAN, ALTA. - Larry Wall's most important sales
meetings in the past six months have been held in his car as it criss-crosses the rural highways east of Edmonton.
The executive director of Alberta's Industrial Heartland, an association of local communities and businesses, has set a frantic pace, conducting tours for dozens of visiting delegations from the USA, Asia and Europe.
Mr. Wall's job is to sell a giant swath of prairie just east of the Alberta capital that over the next half-decade is expected to rival the largest oil-refining hubs along the Gulf Coast of Texas.
So far, four massive new private-sector oil-processing complexes are set to be built in a 330-square-kilometre hub that will serve as a conduit for soaring oilsands production. In addition, a major add-on to an existing refinery-upgrading-petrochemical complex owned xby Shell Canada Ltd. is underway. There are also two other proposals -- one from the Alberta government, the other by Total SA -- that could join the rush.
The four projects plus Shell's will pump $25-billion worth of industrial development into the region during the next five to seven years, while the two other proposals could up the total by $17-billion.
The scale of the plans and aggressive timelines are daunting. Looking only at the required workforce, the number of skilled tradespeople needed when construction peaks after the decade turns is projected to be a staggering 16,000 to 20,000.
Driving the barren backroads on a cold but sunny day late last month, Mr. Wall says the huge patch of what is now largely farmland could surpass Singapore and become the world's fastest-growing industrial zone.
No other part of Canada or the United States has rolled out a welcome mat for the petroleum industry with the enthusiasm that Mr. Wall's Heartland Association has. Nowhere else, according to Mr. Wall, has there been such a cohesive attempt to lure investment.
The Industrial Heartland Association is made up of Lamont, Strathcona and Sturgeon counties, the city of Fort Saskatchewan and 40 corporate giants from the petroleum and petrochemical industries. It was formed in 1999 to market the region internationally and promote growth beyond an existing chemical and refinery row.
Highways, pipelines and railways all converged into the Heartland. Salt caverns located a kilometre beneath the earth added the bonus of 900,000 barrels worth of storage capacity.
Mr. Wall, a former economic development officer with Strathcona County, was assigned the job of selling the region as an easy place for heavy industry to do business and where cost-effective synergies with neighbouring companies could be found (Dow, for example, supplies some of the hydrogen that Shell Canada uses in its process to upgrade heavy oil into more valuable, lighter oil).
But with the unexpected rise in production from Alberta's vast oilsands, companies such as Petro-Canada and Synenco Energy Inc. have opted to locate their refinery projects in the new hub rather than in Alberta's Athabasca region, 300-kilometres north, where the oilsands lie but where labour supplies are tight.
Moving south would give companies access to the larger infrastructure already there and to a much larger labour pool in neighbouring Edmonton, whose population at almost one million is 20 times that of Fort McMurray.
Mr. Wall believes capacity for oil moving into the region and for refined products and petrochemicals moving out will grow to match refining clusters dotting the Texas Gulf Coast.
"This area is all about the manufacturing part of the oil industry, or the need, which the provincial government has pushed hard for many years, to add value to the base product, which is bitumen, before it leaves Alberta," he said.
"The upstream part of the business tends to be about spending money to make money, while the manufacturing part is about cost control. And so you've had companies move where they hope the costs can best be controlled. Here, we've laid the groundwork and we're right beside a huge workforce in a city with a population nearing one-million people."
Even despite the larger labour pool, concerns are surfacing that plans for the Heartland have grown too large.
"There's a shortage of welders in Alberta today and the only mega-project underway is the upgrader at Nexen-Opti's Long Lake oilsands project," said Tom Ebbern, an analyst who tracks the oilsands business at Tristone Capital Corp. in Calgary.
"How are they going to get five or six built, just as mines are being built and while a couple of major natural gas pipelines from the north are also being built?"
Mr. Wall's $25-billion projection for capital spending also does not include an $8-billion upgrading-refining and petrochemical mega-plant that the province of Alberta is pushing hard for one or several industry players to build. It, too, would probably be located in the Heartland hub for the complex, which the province sees as vital if it is to squeeze the most value from the oilsands once production grows toward three million or more barrels a day.
As oilsands producers approach capital payout and royalty breaks end, Alberta's take from the oilsands will skyrocket. The government can choose under its royalty regime to take heavy oil in kind. As a marketer of what could be some 300,000 or more barrels of bitumen a day, the province would benefit from selling a higher-grade product.
Looking over the BA Energy construction site, even Mr. Wall has to catch his breath about how fast things are happening in the Heartland.
"Frankly, the rate of development is rather scary," he said.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...068f6-0f60-4a25-903f-9be55271b17d&k=96535&p=1
Edited link to stop side scrolling. Cosmo
FORT SASKATCHEWAN, ALTA. - Larry Wall's most important sales
meetings in the past six months have been held in his car as it criss-crosses the rural highways east of Edmonton.
The executive director of Alberta's Industrial Heartland, an association of local communities and businesses, has set a frantic pace, conducting tours for dozens of visiting delegations from the USA, Asia and Europe.
Mr. Wall's job is to sell a giant swath of prairie just east of the Alberta capital that over the next half-decade is expected to rival the largest oil-refining hubs along the Gulf Coast of Texas.
So far, four massive new private-sector oil-processing complexes are set to be built in a 330-square-kilometre hub that will serve as a conduit for soaring oilsands production. In addition, a major add-on to an existing refinery-upgrading-petrochemical complex owned xby Shell Canada Ltd. is underway. There are also two other proposals -- one from the Alberta government, the other by Total SA -- that could join the rush.
The four projects plus Shell's will pump $25-billion worth of industrial development into the region during the next five to seven years, while the two other proposals could up the total by $17-billion.
The scale of the plans and aggressive timelines are daunting. Looking only at the required workforce, the number of skilled tradespeople needed when construction peaks after the decade turns is projected to be a staggering 16,000 to 20,000.
Driving the barren backroads on a cold but sunny day late last month, Mr. Wall says the huge patch of what is now largely farmland could surpass Singapore and become the world's fastest-growing industrial zone.
No other part of Canada or the United States has rolled out a welcome mat for the petroleum industry with the enthusiasm that Mr. Wall's Heartland Association has. Nowhere else, according to Mr. Wall, has there been such a cohesive attempt to lure investment.
The Industrial Heartland Association is made up of Lamont, Strathcona and Sturgeon counties, the city of Fort Saskatchewan and 40 corporate giants from the petroleum and petrochemical industries. It was formed in 1999 to market the region internationally and promote growth beyond an existing chemical and refinery row.
Highways, pipelines and railways all converged into the Heartland. Salt caverns located a kilometre beneath the earth added the bonus of 900,000 barrels worth of storage capacity.
Mr. Wall, a former economic development officer with Strathcona County, was assigned the job of selling the region as an easy place for heavy industry to do business and where cost-effective synergies with neighbouring companies could be found (Dow, for example, supplies some of the hydrogen that Shell Canada uses in its process to upgrade heavy oil into more valuable, lighter oil).
But with the unexpected rise in production from Alberta's vast oilsands, companies such as Petro-Canada and Synenco Energy Inc. have opted to locate their refinery projects in the new hub rather than in Alberta's Athabasca region, 300-kilometres north, where the oilsands lie but where labour supplies are tight.
Moving south would give companies access to the larger infrastructure already there and to a much larger labour pool in neighbouring Edmonton, whose population at almost one million is 20 times that of Fort McMurray.
Mr. Wall believes capacity for oil moving into the region and for refined products and petrochemicals moving out will grow to match refining clusters dotting the Texas Gulf Coast.
"This area is all about the manufacturing part of the oil industry, or the need, which the provincial government has pushed hard for many years, to add value to the base product, which is bitumen, before it leaves Alberta," he said.
"The upstream part of the business tends to be about spending money to make money, while the manufacturing part is about cost control. And so you've had companies move where they hope the costs can best be controlled. Here, we've laid the groundwork and we're right beside a huge workforce in a city with a population nearing one-million people."
Even despite the larger labour pool, concerns are surfacing that plans for the Heartland have grown too large.
"There's a shortage of welders in Alberta today and the only mega-project underway is the upgrader at Nexen-Opti's Long Lake oilsands project," said Tom Ebbern, an analyst who tracks the oilsands business at Tristone Capital Corp. in Calgary.
"How are they going to get five or six built, just as mines are being built and while a couple of major natural gas pipelines from the north are also being built?"
Mr. Wall's $25-billion projection for capital spending also does not include an $8-billion upgrading-refining and petrochemical mega-plant that the province of Alberta is pushing hard for one or several industry players to build. It, too, would probably be located in the Heartland hub for the complex, which the province sees as vital if it is to squeeze the most value from the oilsands once production grows toward three million or more barrels a day.
As oilsands producers approach capital payout and royalty breaks end, Alberta's take from the oilsands will skyrocket. The government can choose under its royalty regime to take heavy oil in kind. As a marketer of what could be some 300,000 or more barrels of bitumen a day, the province would benefit from selling a higher-grade product.
Looking over the BA Energy construction site, even Mr. Wall has to catch his breath about how fast things are happening in the Heartland.
"Frankly, the rate of development is rather scary," he said.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...068f6-0f60-4a25-903f-9be55271b17d&k=96535&p=1
Edited link to stop side scrolling. Cosmo
--Last post was truncated by phpBB2: Sources continued--
† University of Toronto: Total Faculty - Princeton Review (no date; looks like a 2001 "population" number according to the U of T and other publications)
Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Sources, 2004
Provincial/Territorial GDP (all): Statistics Canada - Real gross domestic product, 2000-2004
Date modified (by source): 2006-01-05
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-07
1. Ontario (total) DoF is a discrepancy between what Statistics Canada (above) claims is the real 2004 GDP of Ontario and what the Ontario Department of Finance knows it is, and has worked with Statistics Canada on, but Statistics Canada is confederate, slow, not of much use to Ontario (south, with 93% of the population of the Ontarios, and really south, not like north and south states in the U.S. that are somewhat split down the middle; you couldn't even see the real south Ontario on a map of North America). So we pay for real statistics and the Ontario Department of Finance pays for Statistics Canada and we pay for the Ontario DoF and pay very little attention to the confederates and particularly Statistics Canada, which is called StatsCan for short usually but is called StatsCON around here because it's all it does: con "Canadians" into Canadiana propaganda/lies.
The Ontario Department of Finance pays to get updated census data every three years due to constant undercounts by StatsCON that were totally out of control by the 1986 Census, so we have to pay for our own censuses, and for StatsCON, they're constantly low-balling everything in "Ontario" (south, there is nothing in the north worth mentioning; with regard to economics<->socio-economics; there's plenty to mention around the people, or being out in the middle of nowhere all of 60 miles north of Toronto you can get in a canoe and easily think that you're the first person to discover what you're seeing. The near north, which is currently considered as part of the south, by the "Ontario" and confederate feds, not by us, is good for tourism, pre-processing of natural resources, the far north is good for tourism if you're into real wilderness and for natural resources; which were worth less than 2% of the GDP of the Ontarios in 2004, which doesn't subtract subsidies sent north by the "Ontario" feds from the south and it's pretty much the same story, minus the pre-processing of natural resources/primary in all of the Canadas other than in the other end of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and the Vancouver region, Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island.
One has to be very, well being careful around StatsCON won't help, but being knowledgeable will or you'll end up with the distorted propaganda/lies that most "Canadians" believe.
Sources: Statistics Canada and Ontario Ministry of Finance via Ontario Ministry of Finance - Annex VI: Economic Data Tables - 2005 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review - Ontario, Gross Domestic Product (real GDP, billions of chained $1997, 2004) and G7 economic growth comparisons
** Toronto CMA and City of Toronto: Toronto Economic Development Department - PDF Economic Indicators, Real Gross Domestic Product (chained $1997 bil.), 2004)
Release Date (by source): April, 2005
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-07
† U of T - Great Spaces for Great Minds
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-07
_____
But it doesn't really address "Ontario" and "Alberta". It just knocks Alberta off the map, almost with the municipality of Toronto alone, with its one city hall and 25 totally worthless "members of confederate parliament" compared to 35 for the four "provinces" of the Atlantic Canadas and three territories, four "provincial" governments, four premiers to head to First Minister's meetings and the Atlantic Canadas are short 258,448 people, way over another "province" of PEI, just in the irrelevant (due to millions of commuters, business travelers, tourists and other visitors) resident population of the "municipality" of Toronto along with lots of other combinations of alleged "provinces" that have nowhere near the population of the "municipality" of Toronto let alone the GDP/revenues it generates, let alone the GTA.
The poor, poor, under-represented Canadas against big bad Toronto -- dispelled with reality, not "news", just the facts.
When Toronto has had enough, you won't hear any whining, you'll wonder what the hell happened to your delusions as this mess is turned right-side up.
Alberta rich? Alberta and "Ontario"?
Population of the Canadas[1]
October 1, 2005
* “%Pop” = percentage of October 1, 2005 population TOTAL
pr Updated postcensal estimates.
pp Preliminary postcensal estimates.
1. These estimates are based on the 2001 census counts adjusted for net undercoverage
Derived from: Statistics Canada - The Daily, December 21, 2005
Last modified (by source): 2005-12-21
_____
Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
* % of GDP is percent of TOTAL, which Statistics Canada doesn't even bother to provide, let alone percentages, let alone a summary. It makes everything far too clear.
Sources: Statistics Canada - Real gross domestic product, millions of chained $1997, 2000-2004
Statistics Canada and Ontario Ministry of Finance via Ontario Ministry of Finance - Annex VI - Economic Data Tables - 2005 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review - Ontario, Gross Domestic Product, 1991-2004 (real GDP, billions of chained $1997) and G7 economic growth comparisons - and Economic and Fiscal Review "home page".
Date modified (by source): 2006-01-05
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-23
______
The two what? Alberta is behind B.C. let alone Québec. It barely has the economy of the "municipality" of Toronto in dollars let alone the economic diversity and Alberta has more people to pay for and certainly more government/bureaucracy/public employees as opposed to our one city hall.
We don't care about your "per capita" this and "percentage" that because they are based on nothing real. Which provinces above, if you believe in "provinces," (due to ignorance; nothing personal to whomever is in the quote above, it's an open post not a pm or email; "you", "your", etc. means whomever happens to be browsing because I'm looking at a video display, not people) have the biggest markets?
Which provinces have the highest real population growth and real GDP growth in real dollars and why? To work in primary industries, exporting raw/semi-processed volatile commodities as the Albertas does? Here's a longer-term perspective of population growth and verified (as good as it gets) populations from the 1996 and 2001 censuses, as opposed to the latest population estimates above and only one year of growth:
Population and percentage of population by jurisdiction/regions, 1996 and 2001 Censuses
Population Growth is simply 1996 Pop subtracted from 2001 Pop: no ridiculous average percentages of per capitas as StatsCON tends to rely upon quite heavily to pretend that there is something out there and it's not "ON+QC+BC" it's the Windsor-Quebec City<->Québec City Windsor corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island.
Source: Statistics Canada (English) (all sources) - many pages from the results of the 2001 Census of Canada, including the 1996 Census counts and such from: Tables - Canada Population and Dwelling Counts (by about any way you wish to view them) Home Page is probably the best overall ... typical StatsCan't mess. Useful if you can get past their insane interfaces without going insane. If you can figure out how, just to create the above -- let me know.
See also:
Statistics Canada - A Profile of the Canadian Population: Where We Live (Index)
Statistics Canada - Growth concentrated in four large urban areas (uh huh; but remove the percentages and subtract 1996 pop from 2001 pop to see a bit of reality)
_____
See the combined population growth of ON+QC? Do you see anything else with that population growth, in real numbers as opposed to ridiculous percentages of nothing? Do you see anything else with those markets, real GDP and real GDP growth in real millions of dollars (the numbers to the left of the comma, if there is one, are hundreds and thousands and tens of billions of dollars, then hundreds, thousands and tens of millions of dollars, with hundreds of thousands, thousands and tens of dollars ignored)?
Which "provinces" have the real highest increase in GDP, and in real dollars, not average percentages of per capitas with no capita to speak of or economies to speak of?
Does it look to anyone like Alberta is "catching" up on Ontario? It's catching a bit on B.C. and Québec, but has a hell of a long way to go before catching the Québec section of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Work it out yourself. How many decades would it take for Alberta to catch Québec if the economic/GDP and market/population growth in Québec dropped to zero and Alberta kept up at the same rate of real growth, not "percentage of per capita" of nothing? And Québec is certainly not sitting still. It has a real economy, it's not in the business of exporting volatile raw/semi-processed commodities. It's in the business of getting its knowledge-based or "new economy" as the confederates call it, and it certainly is new, by the hour, figured out and set up.
Everything dealing with knowledge-based economies on the planet is coming out of another Dark Ages, figuring out how to deal with the new Rennaicance, knowing that we're going to lose manufacturing to China and India and others, eventually, (South Ontario is defying all economic logic; and not for the first time) knowing that the world we live in (not Alberta) is changing far more rapidly than any political systems/structures on the planet are capable of dealing with.
Our real religious organizations are changing more rapidly than the insults to the words (political) "systems" and "structures" are in this mess and that is Toronto's problem; aside from the outrageous raping and plundering of its revenues and hundreds more problems on top of that, due to the ridiculous "Ontario" and confederate feds, who are not long for this world. Not around us. There are plenty of medieval (a year ago at best, let alone economies based on primary industries) economies in the Canadas, it's about all it's made up of (in land mass) and if you (whomever) think that any amount of bandages can fix this unbelievable mess then you will not be in our Canada or our economic union in less than 10 years. ON+QC+BC above mean the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island, with over 75 "per cent" (on every Canadian dollar in one economic union for now; not that I have anything to do with it but I know others who do and can read and this singular economic union cannot survive; not forever but the short- and long-term solution is to split the economies based almost entirely on primary industries, with Alberta being first in line, off from ours) of the economy.
"Our" means totally restructured, a complete re-write (it's already done; all that remains to be done is the mass-marketing, without destroying our economies in the process with riots) of the Ontario and Québec sections of a much smaller (no choice) Windsor-Montréal corridor on this end.
Québec City is a satellite market/economy of Montréal, not us and it's up to Montréal to figure out what remains in its economy and what doesn't, and the Vancouver region, however the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island (quite well-structured because they've had the freedom to do so; we have not in Toronto and will not until we get rid of the "Ontario" feds ... which will cause the confederate feds to try to dictate to us, which will be the end of that ridiculous mess; for us, you can have them if you want them but they have to get off our land and then you can pay for all of the infrastructure and services they require; not all of the departments, some can be reformed and have to remain as union services; just confederate mound for starters) with about 75 "per cent" (on every Canadian dollar) of the economy of the Canadas; depending on what we do with the confederate debt.
Albertans (politicians, media, on the web; I know many sane ones but it just doesn't matter due to the overwhelmingly ridiculous hype/propaganda/lies/delusions) have no clue and demonstrate it constantly in their "media", governments (Dynasty; the worst dictatorship in the Canadas and by far the most oblivious, with a bunch of simpletons to market to, who gobble up whatever they're told and parrot it) and certainly on the web; everywhere.
And Alberta certainly doesn't look rich to anyone. It looks like a deserted, rural prairie/agricultural province because that's what it is. Or is Klein finally releasing its ridiculous "conservative surpluses"? I know about Alberta's 2006-07 budget and it's about time an Alberta government started spending billions of "conservative surplus" dollars to build up infrastructure but is nowhere near enough spending with the ridiculous surpluses, which real conservatives call "overtaxation", sitting around in the slush funds the Klein Dynasty set up and pours billions of dollars a year into for no apparent reason, instead of building the public goods/infrastructure and services Alberta should have been building for the last 50+ years with its oil/gas royalties and revenues, to create and attract the human capital and private investment to actually create a real economy with real markets; not paying down a debt that didn't exist, then did, then didn't then did, as Klein moved money in and out of the "heritage fund" to overtax the crap out of "y'all" with NO economic plans to do anything to expand the economy beyond the export of raw/semi-processed natural resources, which is WHY Alberta's population and economy is so puny -- and is not gaining in reality on any front other than on the hype front.
The Calgary-Edmonton corridor
Alberta less the Calgary-Edmonton corridor
Alberta total
Source: Statistics Canada - Calgary-Edmonton Corridor
_____
It's not even the "municipality" of Toronto. It's gaining more in population (from Newfoundland no less) but that goes right back to land area and population density, for which it's a bit too much of a pain in the arse to look up around the municipalities and dozens of First Nations/Aboriginal Reserves that make up the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. If you (whomever) wants to do it, look at the page above and click on "corridor". Every CSD in it will be listed, then use what was demonstrated above to add up the land masses and 2001 populations to get the population density.
It doesn't matter. If the population of the GTA showed up in the Albertas it would be in huge fiscal trouble.
The little Calgary and Edmonton CMAs, highway 2 and the puny Red Deer CA, Calgary-Edmonton "corridor" had 72.3% of the population of the Albertas in 2001 and that's where percentages are useful; to actually show something that means something.
And natural resources are worth oh so much to the "Canadian" economy too:
Gross domestic product at basic prices primary industries
$ constant 1997 (millions) 2004
Source: Statistics Canada, Primary Industries
_____
A whole 5.9 percent of the GDP of the Canadas. Wow.
We've been waiting for over 50 years in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor for the Albertas to make something of itselves, but it has done nothing but piss billions of dollars of royalties from nothing at all that Albertans did, right down the drain, year after decade for over 50 years.
They are by far the biggest crybabies in the "federation", took over from Quebec after a "PC Party party" after which, Klein, drunk, announced that Alberta was going to bitch and scream "just like Quebec" to get what Quebec does out of "Confederation."
Big problem: Alberta is not even close to being Quebec.
Population of the Canadas
October 1, 2005
Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
The only thing Alberta is "catching" Quebec on is population -- expenses to pay for, not real GDP growth in real millions of dollars or share of GDP. Money talks, mad cow dung walks and Alberta has two more "problems" in the way of its ridiculous claims of being "the richest", aside from all of the above:
Population of the Canadas[1]
October 1, 2005
Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
And its rather outrageous attitude problems, hype, ridiculous propaganda/lies put the blank line between it and the rest of the Canadas, not the other way around. It is also not part of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor or part of the civilized world, while the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island is.
Most people in the Canadas seem to think that "Ontario" is some singularity for starters, which is beyond belief it's such a joke, and that its economy is based on not just manufacturing but auto parts (sometimes even automobile) manufacturing.
All manufacturing in all of the Ontarios was worth, well a screwed-up chart now to try to hide it as usual:
Source: Ontario Ministry of Finance via www.2Ontario.com
It's now split up into goods producing and services producing industries but the page at the source above (or the Ontario Financing Authority - Ontario Economic and Financial Sources or its 2004-05 Annual Report/Form 18-K (year ended December 31, 2005) to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission).
How much of "Ontario's" economy is made up of manufacturing? 21 percent and that's with a totally screwed-up structure that doesn't exist other than due to medieval legislation. Primary is worth less than 2%, so where does the rest come from given that the above is more than most "Canadians" even know about economies? It's a knowledge-based economy or "new economy" as politicians are putting it, an impossibility just 15 years ago; the bulk of its economy made up of service-based industries and when the real South Ontarios are separated from the rest it will be quite a lot more clear.
Nevermind the fact that it represents every business in the Ontarios that matters; the sources in it, what was compiled to produce it is all that matters:
Ontario Chamber of Commerce (http://www.occ.on.ca/)
Fairness In Confederation
Fiscal Imbalance: Driving Ontario to ‘Have-Not’ Status.
David MacKinnon, August, 2005
PDF http://www.occ.on.ca/2publications/reports/docs/FICReport_082005.pdf
Not for another 100 years at least, but it's bitumen, not black gold. When the price of oil drops back to $45, $40, $30 bbl., Alberta will be in big trouble given that $30 bbl. is the lowest it can go without incurring more expenses turning the dirt glue/tar sands into synthetic crude. And "in vetro" isn't going to change that. It only allows bitumen that's too deep for open pit mining technology to extract, to be extracted at about the same cost.
If Alberta hadn't started it in the first place, quite against Ontario's wishes, it would not have to end and no other provincial government would be citing Alberta as its excuse to keep 100% of the royalties and revenues they make from natural resources while doing exactly what Alberta demanded -- keeping 100% of "equalization" welfare handouts as though the 100% of the royalties/revenues the provincial departments of finance are raking in don't exist.
Equalization, all that matters, is already done via the CHT and CST, which the equalization transfer totally ignores (the already equalized revenues for health care and everything the CST covers, which is plenty more than enough), so aside from the confederate mess around Quebec (because it opted out of the CHST then got taxed into oblivion for it), "equalization" double-equalizes.
And South Ontario pays for 100% of it. Alberta is managing to hold its own around real federal expenses it owes but is getting back about 40% too much in CHT/CST transfers from the confederates; or Ontario is getting 40% too little, but as a capitalist, 40% too much rules, not 40% more to Ontario and it's simply due to the way the transfers are supposed to work but don't.
Your own-source revenues per capita are supposed to be applied against those transfers, but that is not the case. Alberta has about 40% more in revenues per capita than Ontario has:
Source: Finance Canada - Equalization Program
Now take a look at this:
MAJOR (nowhere near all) "Federal" Transfers
2004-05 and 2005-06 sorted from the highest, per person, to the lowest for 2005-06
$ Per person for fiscal 2004-05 and 2005-06 / the percentage the amount is of total government revenues but for the previous fiscal year. Confused? Welcome to the Canadas.
* NL Up one position over NS from 2004-05
**SK up the highest of every jurisdiction in percentage of provincial revenues
Source: Department of Finance Canada - Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories (scroll down for all jurisdictions)
Date modified (by source): 2005-03-31
Last checked/modified (by me): 2006-01-25
_____
The Alberta "Ministry" (oh Lord) of Finance is receiving all of $1 less per capita this fiscal year (and last, if you kept track) than the Ontario "Ministry" (die) of Finance is getting back in the transfers you can see for yourself at the source. That is not 40% less and feel free to take it up with "Finance Canada via South Ontario and Particularly Toronto".
What is going to happen to the mess of "transfer systems" is that all transfers are going to be scrapped other than equalization that does exactly what it says it does. 100% of all provincial revenues from all sources and all provinces (currently, since 1982, "only" Ontario, Quebec, B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, are factored into the "average revenues per capita per province." It's the blue line in the chart above. Fall below it and you get (on top of already equalized CHT, CST and other transfers) "equalization" welfare handouts, in theory but not in practice, as the Atlantic Accord proves rather starkly -- but it's based entirely on Alberta's demands around its oil/gas back in 1957 through 1964. You set the precedent, you're the ones who created "equalization" (with the rest of your prairie welfare bum "provinces" as usual), not us. We opposed it quite strongly but your forefathers (if they were politicians) "won" so suck it up.
The last province in the Canadas that gets to bitch about equalization is Alberta. You invented it, you demanded it, you got it and now you don't want South Ontario to pay for it while you get 40% too much in revenues back and (again, it's an open post, "you" means nothing) you bitch about it? Go ahead and lobby your Hick Party to put an end to it. They certainly don't care what we have to say about anything: yet. We have lots of cards to play to put the thumbscrews to them and anything else; as long as it doesn't disrupt our business with the U.S. [And please don't assume that I "liked" Martin or any other confederate. They can all be strung up on flagpoles for all I care. They are so far less than being worthless that they sometimes even make the "Ontario" feds look like they might be worth feeding a peanut to, very periodically.]
But you can't just put an end to the monster you created. All other transfers have to be scrapped, the FPS, five province standard has to be dropped, all revenues from all sources of all provinces (the territories have an even more insane formula; another book or ten) have to be counted to establish the real national (provincial) average revenues, per capita, which will result in 10 different numbers. Add them up, divide by 10 and you have the real average national revenues per capita.
Then, with no exceptions, ever, under any circumstances (to take vote-buying and general insanity away), all sources of all provincial revenues have to be accounted for and if anything falls below the real national average revenues per capita per province then it gets exactly the amount (no annual accelerator, no floor, no ceiling, no side-deals, no backroom deals, no games) it falls below the national average it is forced to spend the revenues on healthcare, social services, education with accountability -- real equalization. No using it to pay deficits down, there's a 2.5% annual accelerator built into equalization welfare handouts now but South Ontario has no such guarantee of 2.5% annual growth in revenues over the next ten years.
It's a fair solution and it's the only solution. All other "transfers" are scrapped.
0% interest loans based on sound economic plans, if we have the revenues to deal with it in South Ontario (we have quite a few of our own problems to deal with and presently get less of our own revenues per capita back than any other subnational government in the Canadas gets of our revenues; which is certainly not equal and I'm not a socialist anyway; but what's done is done and if we simply cut transfers, well we might as well locate the remains of Idi Amin and erect it as our glorious leader because thousands of Canadians will die year after decade; it's way too late to simply cut it; but is no problem to restructure), build up a fund with what "extra revenues" (tax cuts we need to compete; there is no such thing as "extra revenues") we have to fund the 0% interest loans, to get this mess of the Canadas running on all pistons for a change.
It will not happen until South Ontario throws its hands in the air (due to mass-marketing out of Toronto and elsewheres once Toronto is doing it; which it is, again, but carefully because this place is a dry powder keg ready to explode, which would not be good for NAFTA let alone the Canadas) to get the facts on the table and the Atlantic [Canada] Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) has done so much research to prove the harmful effects of not only equalization welfare handouts in the Atlantic Canadas, but exactly what the document produced by, based on so much research that nothing can deny it, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce document above, but just reading that is worthless. Every source cited in it has to be read first and particularly from the AIMS:
“Help that Hurts.” - Atlantic Institute for Market Studies web site.
“How to Fix Equalization to Encourage Growth.” - Atlantic Institute for Market Studies web site.
For starters and it's nothing new. The Canada Conference Board and many others have recommending scrapping the entire unbelievably dysfunctional mess of "transfer systems" and replacing it with one transfer called equalization that is what is says it is and does what it says it does. But handouts of any sort do not encourage economic growth. Necessity is the mother of all invention.
† University of Toronto: Total Faculty - Princeton Review (no date; looks like a 2001 "population" number according to the U of T and other publications)
Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Sources, 2004
Provincial/Territorial GDP (all): Statistics Canada - Real gross domestic product, 2000-2004
Date modified (by source): 2006-01-05
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-07
1. Ontario (total) DoF is a discrepancy between what Statistics Canada (above) claims is the real 2004 GDP of Ontario and what the Ontario Department of Finance knows it is, and has worked with Statistics Canada on, but Statistics Canada is confederate, slow, not of much use to Ontario (south, with 93% of the population of the Ontarios, and really south, not like north and south states in the U.S. that are somewhat split down the middle; you couldn't even see the real south Ontario on a map of North America). So we pay for real statistics and the Ontario Department of Finance pays for Statistics Canada and we pay for the Ontario DoF and pay very little attention to the confederates and particularly Statistics Canada, which is called StatsCan for short usually but is called StatsCON around here because it's all it does: con "Canadians" into Canadiana propaganda/lies.
The Ontario Department of Finance pays to get updated census data every three years due to constant undercounts by StatsCON that were totally out of control by the 1986 Census, so we have to pay for our own censuses, and for StatsCON, they're constantly low-balling everything in "Ontario" (south, there is nothing in the north worth mentioning; with regard to economics<->socio-economics; there's plenty to mention around the people, or being out in the middle of nowhere all of 60 miles north of Toronto you can get in a canoe and easily think that you're the first person to discover what you're seeing. The near north, which is currently considered as part of the south, by the "Ontario" and confederate feds, not by us, is good for tourism, pre-processing of natural resources, the far north is good for tourism if you're into real wilderness and for natural resources; which were worth less than 2% of the GDP of the Ontarios in 2004, which doesn't subtract subsidies sent north by the "Ontario" feds from the south and it's pretty much the same story, minus the pre-processing of natural resources/primary in all of the Canadas other than in the other end of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and the Vancouver region, Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island.
One has to be very, well being careful around StatsCON won't help, but being knowledgeable will or you'll end up with the distorted propaganda/lies that most "Canadians" believe.
Sources: Statistics Canada and Ontario Ministry of Finance via Ontario Ministry of Finance - Annex VI: Economic Data Tables - 2005 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review - Ontario, Gross Domestic Product (real GDP, billions of chained $1997, 2004) and G7 economic growth comparisons
** Toronto CMA and City of Toronto: Toronto Economic Development Department - PDF Economic Indicators, Real Gross Domestic Product (chained $1997 bil.), 2004)
Release Date (by source): April, 2005
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-07
† U of T - Great Spaces for Great Minds
Date modified (by source): April 20, 2005 12:35 PM
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-07
_____
But it doesn't really address "Ontario" and "Alberta". It just knocks Alberta off the map, almost with the municipality of Toronto alone, with its one city hall and 25 totally worthless "members of confederate parliament" compared to 35 for the four "provinces" of the Atlantic Canadas and three territories, four "provincial" governments, four premiers to head to First Minister's meetings and the Atlantic Canadas are short 258,448 people, way over another "province" of PEI, just in the irrelevant (due to millions of commuters, business travelers, tourists and other visitors) resident population of the "municipality" of Toronto along with lots of other combinations of alleged "provinces" that have nowhere near the population of the "municipality" of Toronto let alone the GDP/revenues it generates, let alone the GTA.
The poor, poor, under-represented Canadas against big bad Toronto -- dispelled with reality, not "news", just the facts.
When Toronto has had enough, you won't hear any whining, you'll wonder what the hell happened to your delusions as this mess is turned right-side up.
Alberta rich? Alberta and "Ontario"?
Population of the Canadas[1]
October 1, 2005
Code:
_____________________________________________________________
October 1, October 1, Pop
JURISDICTION 2004pr 2005pp Change %Pop*
_____________________________________________________________
Ontario 12,454,171 12,589,823 135,652 38.88
Québec 7,566,136 7,616,645 50,509 23.52
British Columbia 4,215,695 4,271,210 55,515 13.19
Alberta 3,215,869 3,281,296 65,427 10.13
Manitoba 1,173,358 1,178,109 4,751 3.64
Saskatchewan 995,351 992,995 -2,356 3.07
Nova Scotia 938,821 938,116 -705 2.90
New Brunswick 752,313 751,726 -587 2.32
Newfoundland & Labrador 517,112 515,591 -1,521 1.59
Prince Edward Island 137,762 138,278 516 0.43
Northwest Territories 42,973 42,965 -8 0.13
Yukon Territory 30,791 31,235 444 0.10
Nunavat Territory 29,647 30,133 486 0.09
_____________________________________________________________
TOTAL 32,069,999 32,378,122 308,123 100.00
_____________________________________________________________
October 1, October 1, Pop
SUMMARY 2004pr 2005pp Change %Pop*
_____________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 20,020,307 20,206,468 186,161 62.41
(ON+QC+BC) Total 24,236,002 24,477,678 241,676 75.60
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 12,049,692 12,171,654 121,962 37.59
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 7,833,997 7,900,444 66,447 24.40
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 5,384,578 5,452,400 67,822 16.84
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB 2,168,709 2,171,104 2,395 6.71
Atlantic Total 2,346,008 2,343,711 -2,297 7.24
Territory Total 103,411 104,333 922 0.32
_____________________________________________________________pr Updated postcensal estimates.
pp Preliminary postcensal estimates.
1. These estimates are based on the 2001 census counts adjusted for net undercoverage
Derived from: Statistics Canada - The Daily, December 21, 2005
Last modified (by source): 2005-12-21
_____
Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
Code:
___________________________________________________________
% of Real
JURISDICTION 2000 2004 GDP Growth
___________________________________________________________
Ontario 429,105 470,300 42.04 41,195
Québec 215,424 234,445 20.96 19,021
British Columbia 125,145 139,205 12.44 14,060
Alberta 121,153 135,837 12.14 14,684
Manitoba 32,846 35,136 3.14 2,290
Saskatchewan 31,252 33,168 2.96 1,916
Nova Scotia 22,970 25,271 2.26 2,301
New Brunswick 18,942 20,867 1.87 1,925
Newfoundland & Labrador 12,322 15,248 1.36 2,926
Northwest Territories 2,412 3,838 0.34 1,426
Prince Edward Island 3,111 3,365 0.30 254
Yukon Territory 1,112 1,206 0.11 94
Nunavat Territory 800 862 0.08 62
___________________________________________________________
TOTAL 1,016,594 1,118,474 100.00 102,154
___________________________________________________________
% of Real
SUMMARY 2000 2004 GDP Growth
___________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 644,529 704,471 62.99 60,216
(ON+QC+BC) Total 769,674 843,676 75.44 74,276
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 372,065 414,003 37.01 41,938
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 246,920 274,798 24.56 27,878
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Totals 185,251 204,141 18.25 18,890
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB 64,098 68,304 6.11 4,206
Atlantic Canadas Total 57,345 64,751 5.79 7,406
Territories 4,324 5,906 0.53 1,582
___________________________________________________________Sources: Statistics Canada - Real gross domestic product, millions of chained $1997, 2000-2004
Statistics Canada and Ontario Ministry of Finance via Ontario Ministry of Finance - Annex VI - Economic Data Tables - 2005 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review - Ontario, Gross Domestic Product, 1991-2004 (real GDP, billions of chained $1997) and G7 economic growth comparisons - and Economic and Fiscal Review "home page".
Date modified (by source): 2006-01-05
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-03-23
______
The two what? Alberta is behind B.C. let alone Québec. It barely has the economy of the "municipality" of Toronto in dollars let alone the economic diversity and Alberta has more people to pay for and certainly more government/bureaucracy/public employees as opposed to our one city hall.
We don't care about your "per capita" this and "percentage" that because they are based on nothing real. Which provinces above, if you believe in "provinces," (due to ignorance; nothing personal to whomever is in the quote above, it's an open post not a pm or email; "you", "your", etc. means whomever happens to be browsing because I'm looking at a video display, not people) have the biggest markets?
Which provinces have the highest real population growth and real GDP growth in real dollars and why? To work in primary industries, exporting raw/semi-processed volatile commodities as the Albertas does? Here's a longer-term perspective of population growth and verified (as good as it gets) populations from the 1996 and 2001 censuses, as opposed to the latest population estimates above and only one year of growth:
Population and percentage of population by jurisdiction/regions, 1996 and 2001 Censuses
Code:
________________________________________________________________________
Population
JURISDICTION 2001 %Pop 1996 %Pop Growth
________________________________________________________________________
Ontario 11,410,046 38.02 10,753,573 37.28 656,473
Québec 7,237,479 24.12 7,138,795 24.75 98,684
British Columbia 3,907,738 13.02 3,724,500 12.91 183,238
Alberta 2,974,807 9.91 2,696,826 9.35 277,981
Manitoba 1,119,583 3.73 1,113,898 3.86 5,685
Saskatchewan 978,933 3.26 990,237 3.43 -11,304
Nova Scotia 908,007 3.03 909,282 3.15 -1,275
New Brunswick 729,498 2.43 738,133 2.56 -8,635
Newfoundland & Labrador 512,930 1.71 551,792 1.91 -38,862
Prince Edward Island 135,294 0.45 134,557 0.47 737
Northwest Territories 37,360 0.12 39,672 0.14 -2,312
Yukon Territory 28,674 0.10 30,766 0.11 -2,092
Nunavut Territory 26,745 0.09 24,730 0.09 2,015
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 30,007,094 100.00 28,846,761 100.00 1,160,333
________________________________________________________________________
Population
SUMMARY 2001 %Pop 1996 %Pop Growth
________________________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 18,647,525 62.14 17,892,368 62.03 755,157
(ON+QC+BC) Total 22,555,263 75.17 21,616,868 74.94 938,395
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 11,359,569 37.86 10,954,393 37.97 405,176
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 7,451,831 24.83 7,229,893 25.06 221,938
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 5,073,323 16.91 4,800,961 16.64 272,362
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB 2,098,516 6.99 2,104,135 7.29 -5,619
Atlantic Canadas Total 2,285,729 7.62 2,333,764 8.09 -48,035
Territories Total 95,168 0.33 92,779 0.31 -2,389
________________________________________________________________________Source: Statistics Canada (English) (all sources) - many pages from the results of the 2001 Census of Canada, including the 1996 Census counts and such from: Tables - Canada Population and Dwelling Counts (by about any way you wish to view them) Home Page is probably the best overall ... typical StatsCan't mess. Useful if you can get past their insane interfaces without going insane. If you can figure out how, just to create the above -- let me know.
See also:
Statistics Canada - A Profile of the Canadian Population: Where We Live (Index)
Statistics Canada - Growth concentrated in four large urban areas (uh huh; but remove the percentages and subtract 1996 pop from 2001 pop to see a bit of reality)
_____
See the combined population growth of ON+QC? Do you see anything else with that population growth, in real numbers as opposed to ridiculous percentages of nothing? Do you see anything else with those markets, real GDP and real GDP growth in real millions of dollars (the numbers to the left of the comma, if there is one, are hundreds and thousands and tens of billions of dollars, then hundreds, thousands and tens of millions of dollars, with hundreds of thousands, thousands and tens of dollars ignored)?
Which "provinces" have the real highest increase in GDP, and in real dollars, not average percentages of per capitas with no capita to speak of or economies to speak of?
Does it look to anyone like Alberta is "catching" up on Ontario? It's catching a bit on B.C. and Québec, but has a hell of a long way to go before catching the Québec section of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Work it out yourself. How many decades would it take for Alberta to catch Québec if the economic/GDP and market/population growth in Québec dropped to zero and Alberta kept up at the same rate of real growth, not "percentage of per capita" of nothing? And Québec is certainly not sitting still. It has a real economy, it's not in the business of exporting volatile raw/semi-processed commodities. It's in the business of getting its knowledge-based or "new economy" as the confederates call it, and it certainly is new, by the hour, figured out and set up.
Everything dealing with knowledge-based economies on the planet is coming out of another Dark Ages, figuring out how to deal with the new Rennaicance, knowing that we're going to lose manufacturing to China and India and others, eventually, (South Ontario is defying all economic logic; and not for the first time) knowing that the world we live in (not Alberta) is changing far more rapidly than any political systems/structures on the planet are capable of dealing with.
Our real religious organizations are changing more rapidly than the insults to the words (political) "systems" and "structures" are in this mess and that is Toronto's problem; aside from the outrageous raping and plundering of its revenues and hundreds more problems on top of that, due to the ridiculous "Ontario" and confederate feds, who are not long for this world. Not around us. There are plenty of medieval (a year ago at best, let alone economies based on primary industries) economies in the Canadas, it's about all it's made up of (in land mass) and if you (whomever) think that any amount of bandages can fix this unbelievable mess then you will not be in our Canada or our economic union in less than 10 years. ON+QC+BC above mean the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island, with over 75 "per cent" (on every Canadian dollar in one economic union for now; not that I have anything to do with it but I know others who do and can read and this singular economic union cannot survive; not forever but the short- and long-term solution is to split the economies based almost entirely on primary industries, with Alberta being first in line, off from ours) of the economy.
"Our" means totally restructured, a complete re-write (it's already done; all that remains to be done is the mass-marketing, without destroying our economies in the process with riots) of the Ontario and Québec sections of a much smaller (no choice) Windsor-Montréal corridor on this end.
Québec City is a satellite market/economy of Montréal, not us and it's up to Montréal to figure out what remains in its economy and what doesn't, and the Vancouver region, however the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island (quite well-structured because they've had the freedom to do so; we have not in Toronto and will not until we get rid of the "Ontario" feds ... which will cause the confederate feds to try to dictate to us, which will be the end of that ridiculous mess; for us, you can have them if you want them but they have to get off our land and then you can pay for all of the infrastructure and services they require; not all of the departments, some can be reformed and have to remain as union services; just confederate mound for starters) with about 75 "per cent" (on every Canadian dollar) of the economy of the Canadas; depending on what we do with the confederate debt.
Albertans (politicians, media, on the web; I know many sane ones but it just doesn't matter due to the overwhelmingly ridiculous hype/propaganda/lies/delusions) have no clue and demonstrate it constantly in their "media", governments (Dynasty; the worst dictatorship in the Canadas and by far the most oblivious, with a bunch of simpletons to market to, who gobble up whatever they're told and parrot it) and certainly on the web; everywhere.
And Alberta certainly doesn't look rich to anyone. It looks like a deserted, rural prairie/agricultural province because that's what it is. Or is Klein finally releasing its ridiculous "conservative surpluses"? I know about Alberta's 2006-07 budget and it's about time an Alberta government started spending billions of "conservative surplus" dollars to build up infrastructure but is nowhere near enough spending with the ridiculous surpluses, which real conservatives call "overtaxation", sitting around in the slush funds the Klein Dynasty set up and pours billions of dollars a year into for no apparent reason, instead of building the public goods/infrastructure and services Alberta should have been building for the last 50+ years with its oil/gas royalties and revenues, to create and attract the human capital and private investment to actually create a real economy with real markets; not paying down a debt that didn't exist, then did, then didn't then did, as Klein moved money in and out of the "heritage fund" to overtax the crap out of "y'all" with NO economic plans to do anything to expand the economy beyond the export of raw/semi-processed natural resources, which is WHY Alberta's population and economy is so puny -- and is not gaining in reality on any front other than on the hype front.
The Calgary-Edmonton corridor
Code:
___________________________________________________________
% of % of % of
Population Pop Province Province Canada
1996 2001 Change (1996) (2001) (2001)
1,913,339 2,149,586 236,247 70.9 72.3 7.2
___________________________________________________________
Code:
___________________________________________________________
% of % of % of
Population Pop Province Province Canada
1996 2001 Change (1996) (2001) (2001)
783,487 825,221 41,734 29.1 27.7 2.8
___________________________________________________________
Code:
___________________________________________________________
% of % of % of
Population % Province Province Canada
1996 2001 Change (1996) (2001) (2001)
2,696,826 2,974,807 277,981 100.0 100.0 9.9
________________________________________________________________
It's not even the "municipality" of Toronto. It's gaining more in population (from Newfoundland no less) but that goes right back to land area and population density, for which it's a bit too much of a pain in the arse to look up around the municipalities and dozens of First Nations/Aboriginal Reserves that make up the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. If you (whomever) wants to do it, look at the page above and click on "corridor". Every CSD in it will be listed, then use what was demonstrated above to add up the land masses and 2001 populations to get the population density.
It doesn't matter. If the population of the GTA showed up in the Albertas it would be in huge fiscal trouble.
The little Calgary and Edmonton CMAs, highway 2 and the puny Red Deer CA, Calgary-Edmonton "corridor" had 72.3% of the population of the Albertas in 2001 and that's where percentages are useful; to actually show something that means something.
And natural resources are worth oh so much to the "Canadian" economy too:
Gross domestic product at basic prices primary industries
$ constant 1997 (millions) 2004
Code:
____________________________________________________________
% of
INDUSTRY 2004-05 All
____________________________________________________________
Agriculture forestry fishing and hunting
Crop production 9,998 0.95
Animal production 4,215 0.40
Forestry and logging 6,880 0.66
Fishing hunting and trapping 866 0.08
Support activities for agriculture
and forestry 1,242 0.12
Agriculture forestry fishing and hunting TOTAL 23,201 2.21
____________________________________________________________
Mining and oil and gas extraction
Oil and gas extraction 22,817 2.18
Mining (except oil and gas)
Coal mining 1,208 0.12
Metal ore mining 4,608 0.44
Non-metallic mineral mining and quarrying 4,730 0.45
Support activities for mining
and oil and gas extraction 5,336 0.51
___________________________________________________________
Mining (except oil and gas) TOTAL 10,546 1.01
____________________________________________________________
Mining and oil and gas extraction TOTAL 38,699 3.69
____________________________________________________________
PRIMARY INDUSTRY TOTAL (ALL) 61,900 5.90
____________________________________________________________
All industries TOTAL 1,048,266 100.00
_________________________________________________________________
A whole 5.9 percent of the GDP of the Canadas. Wow.
We've been waiting for over 50 years in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor for the Albertas to make something of itselves, but it has done nothing but piss billions of dollars of royalties from nothing at all that Albertans did, right down the drain, year after decade for over 50 years.
They are by far the biggest crybabies in the "federation", took over from Quebec after a "PC Party party" after which, Klein, drunk, announced that Alberta was going to bitch and scream "just like Quebec" to get what Quebec does out of "Confederation."
Big problem: Alberta is not even close to being Quebec.
Population of the Canadas
October 1, 2005
Code:
_____________________________________________________________
October 1, October 1, Pop
JURISDICTION 2004pr 2005pp Change %Pop
_____________________________________________________________
Québec 7,566,136 7,616,645 50,509 23.52
Alberta 3,215,869 3,281,296 65,427 10.13
_____________________________________________________________Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
Code:
___________________________________________________________
% of Real
JURISDICTION 2000 2004 GDP Growth
___________________________________________________________
Québec 215,424 234,445 20.96 19,021
Alberta 121,153 135,837 12.14 14,684
___________________________________________________________The only thing Alberta is "catching" Quebec on is population -- expenses to pay for, not real GDP growth in real millions of dollars or share of GDP. Money talks, mad cow dung walks and Alberta has two more "problems" in the way of its ridiculous claims of being "the richest", aside from all of the above:
Population of the Canadas[1]
October 1, 2005
Code:
_____________________________________________________________
October 1, October 1, Pop
JURISDICTION 2004pr 2005pp Change %Pop*
_____________________________________________________________
Ontario 12,454,171 12,589,823 135,652 38.88
Québec 7,566,136 7,616,645 50,509 23.52
British Columbia 4,215,695 4,271,210 55,515 13.19
Alberta 3,215,869 3,281,296 65,427 10.13
_____________________________________________________________
October 1, October 1, Pop
SUMMARY 2004pr 2005pp Change %Pop*
_____________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 20,020,307 20,206,468 186,161 62.41
(ON+QC+BC) Total 24,236,002 24,477,678 241,676 75.60
Alberta 3,215,869 3,281,296 65,427 10.13
_____________________________________________________________Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
Code:
___________________________________________________________
% of Real
JURISDICTION 2000 2004 GDP Growth
___________________________________________________________
Ontario 429,105 470,300 42.04 41,195
Québec 215,424 234,445 20.96 19,021
British Columbia 125,145 139,205 12.44 14,060
Alberta 121,153 135,837 12.14 14,684
___________________________________________________________
% of Real
SUMMARY 2000 2004 GDP Growth
___________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 644,529 704,471 62.99 60,216
(ON+QC+BC) Total 769,674 843,676 75.44 74,276
Alberta 121,153 135,837 12.14 14,684
___________________________________________________________And its rather outrageous attitude problems, hype, ridiculous propaganda/lies put the blank line between it and the rest of the Canadas, not the other way around. It is also not part of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor or part of the civilized world, while the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island is.
Most people in the Canadas seem to think that "Ontario" is some singularity for starters, which is beyond belief it's such a joke, and that its economy is based on not just manufacturing but auto parts (sometimes even automobile) manufacturing.
All manufacturing in all of the Ontarios was worth, well a screwed-up chart now to try to hide it as usual:
Source: Ontario Ministry of Finance via www.2Ontario.com
It's now split up into goods producing and services producing industries but the page at the source above (or the Ontario Financing Authority - Ontario Economic and Financial Sources or its 2004-05 Annual Report/Form 18-K (year ended December 31, 2005) to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission).
How much of "Ontario's" economy is made up of manufacturing? 21 percent and that's with a totally screwed-up structure that doesn't exist other than due to medieval legislation. Primary is worth less than 2%, so where does the rest come from given that the above is more than most "Canadians" even know about economies? It's a knowledge-based economy or "new economy" as politicians are putting it, an impossibility just 15 years ago; the bulk of its economy made up of service-based industries and when the real South Ontarios are separated from the rest it will be quite a lot more clear.
Hank C said:
Nevermind the fact that it represents every business in the Ontarios that matters; the sources in it, what was compiled to produce it is all that matters:
Ontario Chamber of Commerce (http://www.occ.on.ca/)
Fairness In Confederation
Fiscal Imbalance: Driving Ontario to ‘Have-Not’ Status.
David MacKinnon, August, 2005
PDF http://www.occ.on.ca/2publications/reports/docs/FICReport_082005.pdf
Hank C said:
Not for another 100 years at least, but it's bitumen, not black gold. When the price of oil drops back to $45, $40, $30 bbl., Alberta will be in big trouble given that $30 bbl. is the lowest it can go without incurring more expenses turning the dirt glue/tar sands into synthetic crude. And "in vetro" isn't going to change that. It only allows bitumen that's too deep for open pit mining technology to extract, to be extracted at about the same cost.
Hank C said:
If Alberta hadn't started it in the first place, quite against Ontario's wishes, it would not have to end and no other provincial government would be citing Alberta as its excuse to keep 100% of the royalties and revenues they make from natural resources while doing exactly what Alberta demanded -- keeping 100% of "equalization" welfare handouts as though the 100% of the royalties/revenues the provincial departments of finance are raking in don't exist.
Equalization, all that matters, is already done via the CHT and CST, which the equalization transfer totally ignores (the already equalized revenues for health care and everything the CST covers, which is plenty more than enough), so aside from the confederate mess around Quebec (because it opted out of the CHST then got taxed into oblivion for it), "equalization" double-equalizes.
And South Ontario pays for 100% of it. Alberta is managing to hold its own around real federal expenses it owes but is getting back about 40% too much in CHT/CST transfers from the confederates; or Ontario is getting 40% too little, but as a capitalist, 40% too much rules, not 40% more to Ontario and it's simply due to the way the transfers are supposed to work but don't.
Your own-source revenues per capita are supposed to be applied against those transfers, but that is not the case. Alberta has about 40% more in revenues per capita than Ontario has:
Source: Finance Canada - Equalization Program
Now take a look at this:
MAJOR (nowhere near all) "Federal" Transfers
2004-05 and 2005-06 sorted from the highest, per person, to the lowest for 2005-06
$ Per person for fiscal 2004-05 and 2005-06 / the percentage the amount is of total government revenues but for the previous fiscal year. Confused? Welcome to the Canadas.
Code:
_____________________________________________________________
2004-05 2005-06 Change
Nunavat Territory $25,975 / 88% $28,061 / 91% UP 3%
Northwest Territories $16,633 / 78% $17,951 / 80% UP 2%
Yukon Territory $15,727 / 76% $16,818 / 78% UP 2%
Prince Edward Island $ 2,930 / 39% $3,291 / 42% UP 3%
New Brunswick $ 2,739 / 36% $3,111 / 39% UP 3%
Newfoundland & Labrador $ 2,449 / 32% $2,966 / 34% UP 2%*
Nova Scotia $ 2,455 / 39% $2,793 / 42% UP 3%
Manitoba $ 2,428 / 38% $2,717 / 40% UP 2%
Quebec $ 1,757 / 25% $2,052 / 26% UP 1%
British Columbia $ 1,383 / 18% $1,570 / 19% UP 1%
Saskatchewan $ 1,332 / 20% $1,487 / 28% UP 8%**
Ontario $ 1,322 / 21% $1,487 / 21% UP 0%
Alberta $ 1,321 / 16% $1,486 / 16% UP 0%
_____________________________________________________________**SK up the highest of every jurisdiction in percentage of provincial revenues
Source: Department of Finance Canada - Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories (scroll down for all jurisdictions)
Date modified (by source): 2005-03-31
Last checked/modified (by me): 2006-01-25
_____
The Alberta "Ministry" (oh Lord) of Finance is receiving all of $1 less per capita this fiscal year (and last, if you kept track) than the Ontario "Ministry" (die) of Finance is getting back in the transfers you can see for yourself at the source. That is not 40% less and feel free to take it up with "Finance Canada via South Ontario and Particularly Toronto".
What is going to happen to the mess of "transfer systems" is that all transfers are going to be scrapped other than equalization that does exactly what it says it does. 100% of all provincial revenues from all sources and all provinces (currently, since 1982, "only" Ontario, Quebec, B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, are factored into the "average revenues per capita per province." It's the blue line in the chart above. Fall below it and you get (on top of already equalized CHT, CST and other transfers) "equalization" welfare handouts, in theory but not in practice, as the Atlantic Accord proves rather starkly -- but it's based entirely on Alberta's demands around its oil/gas back in 1957 through 1964. You set the precedent, you're the ones who created "equalization" (with the rest of your prairie welfare bum "provinces" as usual), not us. We opposed it quite strongly but your forefathers (if they were politicians) "won" so suck it up.
The last province in the Canadas that gets to bitch about equalization is Alberta. You invented it, you demanded it, you got it and now you don't want South Ontario to pay for it while you get 40% too much in revenues back and (again, it's an open post, "you" means nothing) you bitch about it? Go ahead and lobby your Hick Party to put an end to it. They certainly don't care what we have to say about anything: yet. We have lots of cards to play to put the thumbscrews to them and anything else; as long as it doesn't disrupt our business with the U.S. [And please don't assume that I "liked" Martin or any other confederate. They can all be strung up on flagpoles for all I care. They are so far less than being worthless that they sometimes even make the "Ontario" feds look like they might be worth feeding a peanut to, very periodically.]
But you can't just put an end to the monster you created. All other transfers have to be scrapped, the FPS, five province standard has to be dropped, all revenues from all sources of all provinces (the territories have an even more insane formula; another book or ten) have to be counted to establish the real national (provincial) average revenues, per capita, which will result in 10 different numbers. Add them up, divide by 10 and you have the real average national revenues per capita.
Then, with no exceptions, ever, under any circumstances (to take vote-buying and general insanity away), all sources of all provincial revenues have to be accounted for and if anything falls below the real national average revenues per capita per province then it gets exactly the amount (no annual accelerator, no floor, no ceiling, no side-deals, no backroom deals, no games) it falls below the national average it is forced to spend the revenues on healthcare, social services, education with accountability -- real equalization. No using it to pay deficits down, there's a 2.5% annual accelerator built into equalization welfare handouts now but South Ontario has no such guarantee of 2.5% annual growth in revenues over the next ten years.
It's a fair solution and it's the only solution. All other "transfers" are scrapped.
0% interest loans based on sound economic plans, if we have the revenues to deal with it in South Ontario (we have quite a few of our own problems to deal with and presently get less of our own revenues per capita back than any other subnational government in the Canadas gets of our revenues; which is certainly not equal and I'm not a socialist anyway; but what's done is done and if we simply cut transfers, well we might as well locate the remains of Idi Amin and erect it as our glorious leader because thousands of Canadians will die year after decade; it's way too late to simply cut it; but is no problem to restructure), build up a fund with what "extra revenues" (tax cuts we need to compete; there is no such thing as "extra revenues") we have to fund the 0% interest loans, to get this mess of the Canadas running on all pistons for a change.
It will not happen until South Ontario throws its hands in the air (due to mass-marketing out of Toronto and elsewheres once Toronto is doing it; which it is, again, but carefully because this place is a dry powder keg ready to explode, which would not be good for NAFTA let alone the Canadas) to get the facts on the table and the Atlantic [Canada] Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) has done so much research to prove the harmful effects of not only equalization welfare handouts in the Atlantic Canadas, but exactly what the document produced by, based on so much research that nothing can deny it, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce document above, but just reading that is worthless. Every source cited in it has to be read first and particularly from the AIMS:
“Help that Hurts.” - Atlantic Institute for Market Studies web site.
“How to Fix Equalization to Encourage Growth.” - Atlantic Institute for Market Studies web site.
For starters and it's nothing new. The Canada Conference Board and many others have recommending scrapping the entire unbelievably dysfunctional mess of "transfer systems" and replacing it with one transfer called equalization that is what is says it is and does what it says it does. But handouts of any sort do not encourage economic growth. Necessity is the mother of all invention.
Hank C said:
Was this a mistake or did you intentionally ignore the topic of this forum (local Ontario discussions) and your own thread, "Ontario vs. Alberta?" to try to spread propaganda out of Quebec about propaganda out of Alberta in the Ontario forum?
Source: Canadian Content Interactive Media - Canadian Content web site - Terms of Service
If you report your mistake and get the post moved to the Quebec or Alberta forum, perhaps someone will address it. As is, it is totally off-topic for this forum let alone the thread. In context of the thread, this is all that matters:
Real Gross State [Domestic] Product (millions of chained 2000 dollars)
Code:
______________________________________________________
Rank State 2004 GSP% -Previous*
1 California ......... 1,438,737 13.42
2 New York ........... 843,084 7.86 595,653
3 Texas .............. 803,734 7.50 39,350
4 Florida ............ 543,845 5.07 259,889
5 Illinois ........... 485,231 4.53 58,614
6 Pennsylvania ....... 427,825 3.99 57,406
ONTARIO 399,522
7 Ohio ............... 384,049 3.58 43,776
8 New Jersey ......... 383,725 3.58 324
9 Michigan ........... 345,980 3.23 37,745
10 Georgia ............ 314,325 2.93 31,655
11 North Carolina ..... 307,601 2.87 6,724
12 Virginia ........... 299,402 2.79 8,199
13 Massachusetts ...... 298,020 2.78 1,382
14 Washington ......... 238,286 2.22 59,734
15 Indiana ............ 208,434 1.94 29,852
16 Minnesota .......... 207,793 1.94 641
17 Maryland ........... 206,375 1.92 1,418
18 Tennessee .......... 199,547 1.86 6,828
QUEBEC 199,278
19 Wisconsin .......... 194,093 1.81 5,454
20 Arizona ............ 187,271 1.75 6,822
21 Missouri ........... 185,834 1.73 1,437
22 Colorado ........... 185,169 1.73 665
23 Connecticut ........ 172,355 1.61 12,814
24 Louisiana .......... 133,289 1.24 39,066
25 Alabama ............ 126,875 1.18 6,414
26 South Carolina ..... 124,137 1.16 2,738
27 Kentucky ........... 124,079 1.16 58
28 Oregon ............. 121,411 1.13 2,668
BRITISH COLUMBIA 118,324
ALBERTA 115,461
29 Iowa ............... 103,297 0.96 18,114
30 Oklahoma ........... 96,688 0.90 6,609
31 Nevada ............. 90,350 0.84 6,338
32 Kansas ............. 89,896 0.84 454
33 Utah ............... 75,098 0.70 14,798
34 Arkansas ........... 72,812 0.68 2,286
35 Mississippi ........ 68,857 0.64 3,955
36 District of Columbia 66,871 0.62 1,986
37 Nebraska ........... 61,216 0.57 5,655
38 New Mexico ......... 56,415 0.53 4,801
39 Delaware ........... 49,413 0.46 7,002
40 New Hampshire ...... 48,550 0.45 863
41 Hawaii ............. 45,370 0.42 3,180
42 West Virginia ...... 44,310 0.41 1,060
43 Idaho .............. 40,802 0.38 3,508
44 Maine .............. 39,536 0.37 1,266
45 Rhode Island ....... 38,017 0.35 1,519
MANITOBA 29,866
46 Alaska ............. 28,983 0.27 9,034
SASKATCHEWAN 28,193
47 South Dakota ....... 26,774 0.25 2,209
48 Montana ............ 24,654 0.23 2,120
49 North Dakota ....... 21,088 0.20 3,566
50 Wyoming ............ 20,736 0.19 352
51 Vermont ............ 20,608 0.19 128
NOVA SCOTIA 21,480
NEW BRUNSWICK 17,737
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR 12,961
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES 3,262
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 2,860
YUKON TERRITORY 1,025
NUNAVAT TERRITORY 733
_____________________________________________________
TOTAL 10,720,847 100.00
______________________________________________________
SUMMARY 2004 Region% -Previous*
SOUTHEAST .......... 2,358,882 22.00
MIDEAST ............ 1,977,337 18.44 381,545
FAR WEST ........... 1,963,101 18.31 14,236
GREAT LAKES ........ 1,617,825 15.09 345,276
SOUTHWEST .......... 1,143,925 10.67 473,900
PLAINS ............. 695,886 6.49 448,039
NEW ENGLAND ........ 617,107 5.76 78,779
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ..... 346,477 3.23 270,630
______________________________________________________* The "-Previous" column shows how much the difference is from one state (or region) to the next. E.g. California generated $595,653 million ($595.7 billion) more than New York state did in 2004 (CA GSP minus NY GSP, etc. on down) and/or New York generated $595,653 million ($595.7 billion) less than California did. The "SOUTHEAST" region (see explanation including which states are in what regions) generated $381,545 million ($381.5 billion) more than the mideast region (SOUTHEAST minus MIDWEST = $381,545 million, also known as $381.5 billion), etc.
Note that the first "1" in California's 2004 gross state product (GSP and U.S. GDP/GNP are not the same thing, as in you cannot add up all GSPs and get the GDP of the U.S. because GSP excludes all federal civilian and military "assets" not in the U.S. from all assets minus liabilities, and a few other things) is a trillion dollars. Add six zeroes to all numbers above to get millions of dollars. Vermont's GDP (real GSP using constant chained dollars eliminates inflation as opposed to current dollars at current prices/expenses) can be expressed as $20.6 billion or $20,608,000,000 or $20,608 million. The numbers to the left of the first comma (with the exception of CA) are billions of dollars (1,000 million), 1,000 billion is a trillion; dollars or anything else. California is the only state with over a trillion dollars in "gross output"/"economic output."
51 may look odd but it's due to the 50 states + District of Columbia (D.C.)
The above is not in appropriately-named "loonies" (regarding most of the Canadas; in land area) but in US$.
The Bank of Canada - 10-year currency converter nominal rate at the noon of trading, December 31, 2004 (end of year, which is what the temporal measure of the Gross State/Provincial/Territorial Products above are, the four business quarters combined, Jan 1, 2004 through Dec 31, 2004, or "year ending" December 31, 2004) was 1 Canadian dollar equals 0.83 US dollars (noon), with exchange rates of 0.8308 (1.2036 US).
The cash rate (estimated average commercial rate, in the U.S.) of the same noon was 1 Canadian dollar equals 0.80 US dollars (noon), with exchange rates of 0.8308 (1.2036 US). But that's the noon of one trading day, not the average annualized rate.
The (PDF Bank of Canada Rates and Statistics Exchange Rates (monthly and annually) - Financial Exchanges Department, annualized exchange rate for 2004, average of the 252 trading days at the noon) was US$1.30152024, inverse rate, 1 Canadian dollar = US$0.69847976.
But nothing got that rate other than other U.S. Federal Reserve Banks (in the U.S.); everything else had/has to make a profit off the interest the Bank of Canada charged with its lending rates (then the interest differential, starting with U.S. Federal Reserve Banks), more in interest at any commercial financial institution (or whatever commercial anything exchanging/trading currency), so reality is lower than the above and ya it does look low but look it up; to the trillionth of a cent.
So I averaged it out to US$0.85, because it's what it's been trading at on average on the TSX (inverse of on the NYSE, even though with currency exchanges, the lender has to cover the interest of whatever its own central bank, Federal Reserve in the U.S., happens to be charging on its currency, not on any other currency; which is not legal tender in the U.S. or Canada; greenbacks are not legal tender in the Canadas, they have to be traded into legal Canadian tender to be used here, and vice versa with Canadian currency in the U.S.A.).
The certified rates for customs services by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is what is normally used for documentation; by the Ontario Financing Authority's Province of Ontario's Annual Report on Form 18-K to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, <whatever year> (2005 from fiscal 2004-05 is the latest one at the link above and the document is in PDF format from the HTML link above, so right-click and "Save link|target as..." unless you want the free Adobe Acrobat Reader opening in your web browser. The fiscal 2003-04 Form 18-K report isn't available in the archives, PDF
click here
to get it).
GDPs (GSPs, GPPs, GTPs, same thing due to the North American Industry Classification System/NAICS, same industries defined the same way) above are for the four business quarters of 2004 added up, also known as the calendar year, Jan 1 through Dec 31, 2004 ("year ending December 31") in the cases above, assuming you look at 2004 real GDP or GSP: not government or any other fiscal years, but only with one exchange rate used for US$ conversions:
The inverse of the noon buying rate in New York City on December 9, 2004 for cable transfers in Canadian dollars, as certified for customs purposes by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was $1.00 = $0.8161. It's not even one day (Dec 9, 2004 - 12:00:00.000 PM, EST), let alone the annualized rate and it's not the year end either, not that it matters when looking at the trading (buying) rate for a thousandth of a second to represent an entire year.
Our GDPs (in Canada) are not based on what the Canadian dollar happens to be selling for/being traded for; credit money is never "sold" or truly owned by anything but central banks; at U.S. Federal Reserve Banks or commercial institutions/businesses.
There are far too many variables to look at to get a single accurate currency trading rate over an entire year. The Beer Store (Brewers Retail) in Toronto (probably elsewhere; I've just never ended up with foreign currency elsewhere in the Ontarios or Canadas) trades American currency at a better rate, for normal consumers at the retail level, than most banks will give you in US$. Lots of businesses south of the border take Canadian currency on par to use as a draw (where markets exist to make it worth the draw), GDPs have to be split up into imports and exports then levies (in whatever currency at whatever rate it's trading at that hour or day) have to be applied; it's simple to take exchange rate(s) around entire economies and to pretend that it means something. But it rarely does.
So you take these sources for real GDP in the Canadas:
Sources: Statistics Canada - Real gross domestic product, 2000-2004
Statistics Canada and Ontario Ministry of Finance via Ontario Ministry of Finance - Annex VI - Economic Data Tables - 2005 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review - Ontario, Gross Domestic Product (real GDP, billions of chained $1997) and G7 economic growth comparisons - and Economic and Fiscal Review "home page".
...multiply the numbers by 0.85 and get the above: for the "provinces" and territories of the Canadas. No matter what rate is used, it's only going to drop Alberta down even further, which is the only point. I'm being nice using US$0.85, the trading rate on the TSX at the close of Friday March 31, 2006 and it's been hovering around there for over a year.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis - Regional Economic Accounts
Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce
_____
Whatever the "author" of the document being quoted/addressed here is on, I could drop Alberta down to the GDP of Arkansas with annualized exchange rates from any number of sources. US$0.85 is not correct, US$0.69847976 could be used, it is the annualized rate from the Bank of Canada in US$ for 2004, which gives Alberta a real 2004 GDP of US$94,879 million, which drops it below Oklahoma, only 4 spots from Arkansas.
The "economics institute" may want to look up some basics instead of spreading Quebec propaganda via Alberta propaganda.
Population of the Canadas
October 1, 2005
Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
The Albertas are gaining in expenses, population compared to the Quebecs (slightly) but not real GDP growth.
You don't say. And which "province" might that be?
Population of the Canadas
October 1, 2005
Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
The province of Toronto? Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island.
Go west to work? Lower Mainland as usual; or retire in Victoria/south Vancouver Island. The weather is great; not to mention the scenery.
Economic indicators, by province and territory (monthly and quarterly), Feb. 2006
SA = Seasonally adjusted.
x = suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act
Derived from: Statistics Canada - Canadian Statistics - Economic indicators, by province and territory (select each province/territory from the left sidebar for breakdowns)
Date modified (by source): 2006-03-29
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-04-02
_____
The usual: Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island ("ON+BC+QC") at over 75%.
Freeze your arse off, watch out for the bears working out in the middle of nowhere, send your money home, don't spend it in what there is (isn't) of the "Alberta" economy, keep our pipelines/necessary (for now) supply up and running and we'll pay you for it. Everyone working in every worthless make-work welfare primary industry, exporting raw/semi-processed (namely agriculture, forestry and fishing) and exporting all of the value added jobs, spin-offs, expanded markets/economies/revenues bases with it due to no markets to speak of, has to be scrapped as blacksmiths, stablers and such were, when the industrial "revolution" hit North America.
No economies to speak of due to no markets to sell to (without exporting raw/semi-processed volatile commodities and everything value-added along with it, which the Albertas do around COWS; not only exporting to American meat processing plants but re-importing, which is called selling low, buying high and it's a good way to go bankrupt) is why the economies and markets of the Outer Canadas are so pathetic. You keep shooting yourselves in the feet and then bitching about it and demanding handouts.
Head to the Albertas to work outside in -50 degree weather around primary industries and even some construction, watch out for bears, you're in the middle of nowhere, and make money to send home as a "transfer payment."
Ontario has over half of the best topsoil in the Canadas. We don't need your farmers, they cost us money for nothing but make-work welfare that gets your economies nowhere (with 100 years or more of proof; you don't even have your own law enforcement up and out there) and don't allow us to subsidize them as they should be (4 to 5 times what they get now, just to get them on par with American farmers) -- because they're not throwing jobs and everything that goes along with them, away to other economies, because there are real markets to sell to here.
Alberta was a "have-not" largely deserted prairie/agriculture province when the foreign oil companies (two from the Ontarios) moved in over 50 years ago and it still is a deserted prairie/agricultural province with nothing but oil royalties to prop an otherwise totally worthless "province" up; for nothing, to get nowhere. After over 50 years of waiting and proof, it is so hopelessly far behind (trying to get a real economy), that we might as well kick it out of our economic union and add Libya -- which does much better with nothing but oil/gas exports in what is otherwise a desert country that has never received a cent from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island, has an estimated July 1, 2005 population of 5,765,563 (Alberta, 3,256,816) and while every Libyan who wants a house or 'apartment' (which we call condos; owned) is provided with one by the State, and law enforcement, military and everything else, Alberta is still using our federal RCMP law enforcement for no population to speak of, is rife with homelessness and poverty and has elected dictatorships that have done nothing but piss billions of dollars down the drain, and now hoard it in "conservative provincial surplus" (overtaxation) for no apparent reason; as opposed to giving it back to the taxpayers of the Albertas, investing in public goods and services based on a sound economic plan; which is has never done before, but seems to be trying to figure a few things out, throw a few billion dollars around, in the 2006-07 budget.
Of course, all the best and good luck over the next 50+ years. But we'll tell you when your economy is truly worth something as a real economy. It's worth the price of crude (and natural gas until it runs out in a decade or so; which mandates finding another source of energy to convert the bitumen into synthetic crude right now, as well as getting the natural gas from the territories/Arctic piped down), the demand elsewhere, not in the Albertas. If/when production from our refineries on up and down the pipelines can and do increase production, not to mention what goes on in the rest of the world, the price of synthetic crude/bbl. out of the Albertas, Saskatchewans, Arctic, Atlantic Canadas, hopefully BC offshore soon*, and the price of crude/bbl. will drop. It's simply how supply and demand works and is a major problem when trying to base monetary/economic/fiscal policy on primary industries.
* BC will get offshore or the the rigs we paid everything for that the Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia "Ministries" of Finance (department of, where the real work gets done) will be shut down; which they won't so BC will get its offshore oil/gas developed.
The North Atlantic isn't exactly hospitable and if the Atlantic Canadas get to stick our offshore rigs in those waters then so does BC. If Saskatchewan gets 70% of the 100% of the royalties/revenues its provincial department of finance keeps from its oil taken into account (as per federal legislation and regulations that are worth used toilet paper at the moment) as provincial revenues to be applied against "equalization" and all other transfers, then so do the Newfoundland & Labrador (NL) and Nova Scotia (NS) departments of finance.
And it shouldn't be 70%, it should be 100% of all provincial revenues with no exceptions, ever, being applied against all transfers -- or you can forget about going back to the "10 province standard", which simply means including Alberta's revenues per capita to the national provincial revenues per capita, the number that sets the level at which a provincial department of finance has to drop below in its own revenues per capita to collect equalization.
OR, when we go back to the 10-province standard to calculate average provincial revenues per capita (own-source fiscal capacity, 10 different numbers added up then divided by 10 to get the average), then ALL natural resources, certainly Alberta's oil/gas royalties and revenues (from capital investment/employment), will be removed from the equation, will not be counted as provincial revenues at all, just as they aren't right now due to the FPS/five-province standard of "only" Ontario, Quebec, BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan's provincial revenues and only 33 provincial revenue sources in those 5 provinces establish the "average national average provincial revenues per capita" (just see one page at the Department of Finance Canada - Equalization Program ... and take it with a pound of salt, because it does not work as it claims to work and NL and NS with the usual, never any question of keeping 100% of our offshore oil/gas royalties and revenues, it's up to your governments to contract the land deals, even though it's "land" under federal waters, not our governments -- but that is not the issue and never has been other than via propaganda/lies, counting on the ignorance of "Canadians". The issue is that 70% of the 100% of the royalties/revenues the depts. of finance in NL and NS are supposed to be applied against equalization and all other transfers, but are not).
0% of the royalties/revenues the NS and NL (ultimately) depts. of finance do have and do keep will be applied against equalization welfare handouts or any other transfers for yet another ten years, but Saskatchewan got 70% of its royalties/revenues accounted for resulting in this:
Equalization Entitlements in 2005-06 $ per person
(Per person is also called per capita; same thing, the total divided by the population of each province in this case, but the confederate Dept. of Finance (a.k.a. "Finance Canada") doesn't bother to list the population estimate(s) they're using, so either can I to make sure that they're not playing any more games than usual.)
Figures reflect increases resulting from the new framework on Equalization announced by the Prime Minister following the October 2004 First Ministers' Meeting. These figures incorporate the protection provided to provinces against declines in Equalization. These figures do not include the additional $150 million in Equalization announced in Budget 2004. [Or the 'Atlantic Accord' or the removal of the cap/ceiling from $10 billion total, which should have been raised to account for inflation, not removed entirely, or the 3.5% annual accelerator on equalization transfers from 2006-07 "thereafter", while "Ontario" (south) has no such guarantee of 3.5% annual economic growth to pay for it, or plenty of other BS to buy votes at the expense of the Ontarios, as usual.]
Source: Department of Finance Canada - Equalization Program
Date modified (by source): 2005-04-04
Last modified/checked (by me): 2006-01-25
_____
BC is collecting more (with a proper measure, percent share of the total per capita "equalization" transfers to every province but Ontario, as always. In 1964, changes were made to equalization, 70% of the 100% of revenues provincial governments make from resources are supposed to be applied against equalization transfers. As a result, Alberta's oil and gas bumped up the province's revenues enough that it no longer qualified for handouts from the Québec City-Windsor corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island, a.k.a. "Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia") than Saskatchewan is.
Equalization Entitlements – (2004-05, 2005-06) per person
Sorted by 2005-06 per person ($ millions)
Figures reflect increases resulting from the new framework on Equalization announced by the Prime Minister following the October 2004 First Ministers' Meeting). These figures incorporate the protection provided to provinces against declines in Equalization. These figures do not include the additional $150 million in Equalization announced in Budget 2004. [Or the 'Atlantic Accord' or 3.5% annual accelerator or plenty of other BS to buy votes at the expense of the Ontarios, as usual.]
Source: Not Long For This World Finance "Canada" - Equalization Program
Date modified (by source): 2005-04-04
Last updated/checked (by me): 2005-01-25
_____
Nothing got "nailed" more than Saskatchewan did (not nailed; simply following the laws and regulations of the alleged "system" as Alberta was forced to in 1964 -- but no other province other than the ones that weren't collecting "equalization" welfare handouts: Ontario, Quebec and BC; and Saskatchewan as alleged last year, but as you can see, the number above to Saskatchewan is not $0 and $83 per person to Ontario would amount to $1,044,955,309 as of the October 1, 2005 population estimates) over the 2004 equalization renewal and ridiculous "Atlantic Accord", which should be the first thing Harper rips up.
You don't get to keep 100% of your provincial revenues (truly federal/union revenues in the case of the NL and NS offshore rigs; but not, the NL and NS governments keep 100% of the royalties/revenues) while also collecting welfare, which is exactly how the equalization system is supposed to work: as welfare to provincial "ministries" of finance and with no strings attached, at 100% of the entitlement level as though the revenues from natural resources (charged/contracted by your own provincial governments and nothing else) don't exist.
It's like winning the lottery and demanding to keep your welfare payments regardless of income -- and actually getting to keep 100% of welfare entitlements. "Ontario" (south) pays for 100% of the things, it's had it with the ridiculous side-deals, the hopeless mess of the "transfer system" that claims many things but does nothing but play political games with our lives and futures -- and yours.
As per usual, it would be one thing if they actually accomplished something positive, but they not only accomplish nothing positive, they screw your own economies up. Why would anyone want to pay for that? Like it or no, we're Canadians in South Ontario and have no problems with revenue sharing, but not when every other provincial department of finance gets to keep more of its own or our revenues per capita than we do, and it accomplishes far worse than nothing.
Alberta's contribution is neither appreciated nor ignored; anymore than the City of Toronto's contribution to the federation is appreciated (just ignored and turned upside-down and inside out with lies, while being spat and vomited on). It's the only comparison to make around Alberta regarding the Ontarios: City of Toronto. And get your documentation on the table for once, from as many sources as Ontario has, in the same measure of what fiscal imbalance means.
The only things that have "documented" what Alberta claims to pay out in revenues "to the federation" (are you taking our federal RCMP law enforcement into account? You cannot possibly pay for it, it's federal and I don't mean the FBI end, I mean the local and "provincial" law enforcement ends on down to general purpose/traffic cops, from recruiting to pensions and everyone/everything in between. With 907,655.59 square km of land and federal waters in the Great Lakes and thousands of internal lakes and waterways to patrol and 12,589,823 people to keep the peace over, Ontario pays for 100% of its provincial, regional and local law enforcement from top to bottom, bottom to top. With 1,357,743.08 square kilometers of land, federal water in the St. Lawrence and thousands of internal lakes and waterway to patrol and 7,616,645 people to keep the peace over, Québec pays for 100% of its provincial, regional and local law enforcement from top to bottom, bottom to top.
With only 639,987.12 square km of land and only 3,281,296 to keep the peace over, Alberta has federal-"provincial"/regional/local law enforcement all over the place. To even begin to make a comparison with Ontario or Québec, Alberta has to deduct those subsidies from Ontario and Québec taxpayers) come from allegations that have been printed in the likes of the Calgary Sun.
What does the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have to say about poor, poor Alberta getting 40% too much of its own revenues back, or Ontario getting 40% to little of its own revenues back?
Albertans have the habit of never documenting sources (other than sometimes the "newz media" -- which does nothing but sell stories to their target morons to make as much money as possible selling ad space; there is no truth in the news and no news in the truth) about anything.
Albertans have a habit of ignoring every reliable source around to try to beat their chests.
It doesn't change reality. It doesn't make anyone else (with a working brain, who matters) believe any of it. It makes Albertans look very stupid and that's all it accomplishes.
Just for starters, forget this document; it states right at the top that it's based on existing studies, research and academia. Just go through the document to get the names of every document it's based on, read all of them after sorting them by release date, as cited throughout the text, ignoring the text and just looking for footnotes/references to other documents that caused one sentence or paragraph in the document below to exist; then go the the INDEPENDENT POLICY RESEARCH and REFERENCES AND RELEVANT WEB SITES and read all of it -- and then read the document:
Ontario Chamber of Commerce (http://www.occ.on.ca/)
Fairness In Confederation
Fiscal Imbalance: Driving Ontario to ‘Have-Not’ Status.
David MacKinnon, August, 2005
PDF http://www.occ.on.ca/2publications/reports/docs/FICReport_082005.pdf
And that's just as of August 2005 from one source that pulled together many, which then (the document) got the Canadian Chamber of Commerce involved and the Atlantic [Canadas] Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) involved even more.
Where is even one of Alberta's equivalent mountains of documentation about its alleged fiscal imbalance? You'll (whomever, but particularly Albertans) find some of it documented in the report above, with sources cited, not pulled from thin air (or written in an op-ed to sell ad space for as much money as possible with sensationalism/hype) and coming across as nothing but whining and crying and stomping and rolling on the floor -- and over your own history. Alberta started the endless loop of complaint in gripe-fests for "equalization", against the wishes of Ontario, but you won and now you think you get to bitch about it?
I'm only 41 and I was alive when Alberta was a "have-not" province on equalization welfare handouts. Ontario was against it because it never has and never will accomplish anything. It was never designed to. Money transfers aren't the problem, they're the only way to have an economic union that works and an American economist helped to get equalization going:
Equalization: Welfare Trap or Helping Hand? - Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), Frontier Center for Public Policy (FCPP), Montreal Economic Institute (MEI). Many other related documents available from this link; but nothing on the conference itself. It tells you to read "Fiscal Equalization Revisited." It's written by the American (James Buchanan, Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics (1986) who helped to get equalization going, revisiting the concept of equalization in general after 50 years.
The concept of money redistribution is not socialist; it's totally capitalist if it's done properly. It just never has been done properly and has been distorted beyond all recognition by politicians at the local, regional, "provincial"/territorial and confederate/federal level made up of side-deals, add-ons, backroom wheeling and dealing by politicians -- not us.
They've destroyed the transfer systems creating a monster that is almost beyond comprehension. But that's the issue -- not the general concept of wealth distribution -- due to being in an economic union. So we either split the economic union up (you're not getting any of our land; if you want out of Canada, whomever, then use your constitutional right to separate yourself and anything you own, from our land and leave to another country; if you can find one that is up to your "standards", whatever they are) or, for starters, scrap the mess of transfer systems and replace it all with one simple, transparent, accountable transfer that does exactly what it says it does: equalizes and for certain things only that stimulate economic growth instead of doing the exact opposite.
We are looking for positive solutions and are working with everyone and everything who is doing the same. We are identifying problems and documenting them with skids of irrefutable documentation so that nothing can dispute anything; but to fix, not to bitch or hoard or just basically come across as Albertan parrots of politicians and "newz media".
GDPs (GSPs, GPPs, GTPs, same thing due to the North American Industry Classification System/NAICS, same industries defined the same way) above are for the four business quarters of 2004 added up, also known as the calendar year, Jan 1 through Dec 31, 2004 ("year ending December 31") in the cases above, assuming you look at 2004 real GDP or GSP: not government or any other fiscal years, but only with one exchange rate used for US$ conversions:
The inverse of the noon buying rate in New York City on December 9, 2004 for cable transfers in Canadian dollars, as certified for customs purposes by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was $1.00 = $0.8161. It's not even one day (Dec 9, 2004 - 12:00:00.000 PM, EST), let alone the annualized rate and it's not the year end either, not that it matters when looking at the trading (buying) rate for a thousandth of a second to represent an entire year.
Our GDPs (in Canada) are not based on what the Canadian dollar happens to be selling for/being traded for; credit money is never "sold" or truly owned by anything but central banks; at U.S. Federal Reserve Banks or commercial institutions/businesses.
There are far too many variables to look at to get a single accurate currency trading rate over an entire year. The Beer Store (Brewers Retail) in Toronto (probably elsewhere; I've just never ended up with foreign currency elsewhere in the Ontarios or Canadas) trades American currency at a better rate, for normal consumers at the retail level, than most banks will give you in US$. Lots of businesses south of the border take Canadian currency on par to use as a draw (where markets exist to make it worth the draw), GDPs have to be split up into imports and exports then levies (in whatever currency at whatever rate it's trading at that hour or day) have to be applied; it's simple to take exchange rate(s) around entire economies and to pretend that it means something. But it rarely does.
So you take these sources for real GDP in the Canadas:
Sources: Statistics Canada - Real gross domestic product, 2000-2004
Statistics Canada and Ontario Ministry of Finance via Ontario Ministry of Finance - Annex VI - Economic Data Tables - 2005 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review - Ontario, Gross Domestic Product (real GDP, billions of chained $1997) and G7 economic growth comparisons - and Economic and Fiscal Review "home page".
...multiply the numbers by 0.85 and get the above: for the "provinces" and territories of the Canadas. No matter what rate is used, it's only going to drop Alberta down even further, which is the only point. I'm being nice using US$0.85, the trading rate on the TSX at the close of Friday March 31, 2006 and it's been hovering around there for over a year.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis - Regional Economic Accounts
Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce
_____
Whatever the "author" of the document being quoted/addressed here is on, I could drop Alberta down to the GDP of Arkansas with annualized exchange rates from any number of sources. US$0.85 is not correct, US$0.69847976 could be used, it is the annualized rate from the Bank of Canada in US$ for 2004, which gives Alberta a real 2004 GDP of US$94,879 million, which drops it below Oklahoma, only 4 spots from Arkansas.
The "economics institute" may want to look up some basics instead of spreading Quebec propaganda via Alberta propaganda.
Population of the Canadas
October 1, 2005
Code:
_____________________________________________________________
October 1, October 1, Pop
JURISDICTION 2004pr 2005pp Change %Pop
_____________________________________________________________
Québec 7,566,136 7,616,645 50,509 23.52
Alberta 3,215,869 3,281,296 65,427 10.13
_____________________________________________________________Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
Code:
___________________________________________________________
% of Real
JURISDICTION 2000 2004 GDP Growth
___________________________________________________________
Québec 215,424 234,445 20.96 19,021
Alberta 121,153 135,837 12.14 14,684
___________________________________________________________The Albertas are gaining in expenses, population compared to the Quebecs (slightly) but not real GDP growth.
Montreal Economic Mental Institution said:
You don't say. And which "province" might that be?
Population of the Canadas
October 1, 2005
Code:
_____________________________________________________________
October 1, October 1, Pop
JURISDICTION 2004pr 2005pp Change %Pop*
_____________________________________________________________
Ontario 12,454,171 12,589,823 135,652 38.88
Québec 7,566,136 7,616,645 50,509 23.52
British Columbia 4,215,695 4,271,210 55,515 13.19
Alberta 3,215,869 3,281,296 65,427 10.13
_____________________________________________________________
October 1, October 1, Pop
SUMMARY 2004pr 2005pp Change %Pop*
_____________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 20,020,307 20,206,468 186,161 62.41
(ON+QC+BC) Total 24,236,002 24,477,678 241,676 75.60
Alberta 3,215,869 3,281,296 65,427 10.13
_____________________________________________________________Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory
millions of chained (1997) dollars
Code:
___________________________________________________________
% of Real
JURISDICTION 2000 2004 GDP Growth
___________________________________________________________
Ontario 429,105 470,300 42.04 41,195
Québec 215,424 234,445 20.96 19,021
British Columbia 125,145 139,205 12.44 14,060
Alberta 121,153 135,837 12.14 14,684
___________________________________________________________
% of Real
SUMMARY 2000 2004 GDP Growth
___________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 644,529 704,471 62.99 60,216
(ON+QC+BC) Total 769,674 843,676 75.44 74,276
Alberta 121,153 135,837 12.14 14,684
___________________________________________________________Go west to work? Lower Mainland as usual; or retire in Victoria/south Vancouver Island. The weather is great; not to mention the scenery.
Economic indicators, by province and territory (monthly and quarterly), Feb. 2006
Code:
__________________________________________
Employment % of
JURISDICTION SA, thousands TOTAL
__________________________________________
Ontario 6,431.8 39.35
Québec 3,749.4 22.94
British Columbia 2,175.9 13.31
Alberta 1,835.3 11.23
Manitoba 586.1 3.59
Saskatchewan 482.2 2.95
Nova Scotia 441.7 2.70
New Brunswick 359.2 2.20
Newfoundland & Labrador 215.2 1.32
Prince Edward Island 69.0 0.42
Northwest Territories x n/a
Yukon Territory x n/a
Nunavat Territory x n/a
__________________________________________
TOTAL 16,345.8 100.00
__________________________________________
Employment % of
SUMMARY SA, thousands TOTAL
__________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 10,181.2 62.29
(ON+QC+BC) Total 12,357.1 75.60
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 6,164.6 37.71
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 3,988.7 24.40
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 2,903.6 17.76
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB 1,068.3 6.54
Atlantic Total 1,085.1 6.64
Territory Total x n/a
__________________________________________x = suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act
Derived from: Statistics Canada - Canadian Statistics - Economic indicators, by province and territory (select each province/territory from the left sidebar for breakdowns)
Date modified (by source): 2006-03-29
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-04-02
_____
The usual: Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island ("ON+BC+QC") at over 75%.
Freeze your arse off, watch out for the bears working out in the middle of nowhere, send your money home, don't spend it in what there is (isn't) of the "Alberta" economy, keep our pipelines/necessary (for now) supply up and running and we'll pay you for it. Everyone working in every worthless make-work welfare primary industry, exporting raw/semi-processed (namely agriculture, forestry and fishing) and exporting all of the value added jobs, spin-offs, expanded markets/economies/revenues bases with it due to no markets to speak of, has to be scrapped as blacksmiths, stablers and such were, when the industrial "revolution" hit North America.
No economies to speak of due to no markets to sell to (without exporting raw/semi-processed volatile commodities and everything value-added along with it, which the Albertas do around COWS; not only exporting to American meat processing plants but re-importing, which is called selling low, buying high and it's a good way to go bankrupt) is why the economies and markets of the Outer Canadas are so pathetic. You keep shooting yourselves in the feet and then bitching about it and demanding handouts.
Head to the Albertas to work outside in -50 degree weather around primary industries and even some construction, watch out for bears, you're in the middle of nowhere, and make money to send home as a "transfer payment."
Ontario has over half of the best topsoil in the Canadas. We don't need your farmers, they cost us money for nothing but make-work welfare that gets your economies nowhere (with 100 years or more of proof; you don't even have your own law enforcement up and out there) and don't allow us to subsidize them as they should be (4 to 5 times what they get now, just to get them on par with American farmers) -- because they're not throwing jobs and everything that goes along with them, away to other economies, because there are real markets to sell to here.
Alberta was a "have-not" largely deserted prairie/agriculture province when the foreign oil companies (two from the Ontarios) moved in over 50 years ago and it still is a deserted prairie/agricultural province with nothing but oil royalties to prop an otherwise totally worthless "province" up; for nothing, to get nowhere. After over 50 years of waiting and proof, it is so hopelessly far behind (trying to get a real economy), that we might as well kick it out of our economic union and add Libya -- which does much better with nothing but oil/gas exports in what is otherwise a desert country that has never received a cent from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island, has an estimated July 1, 2005 population of 5,765,563 (Alberta, 3,256,816) and while every Libyan who wants a house or 'apartment' (which we call condos; owned) is provided with one by the State, and law enforcement, military and everything else, Alberta is still using our federal RCMP law enforcement for no population to speak of, is rife with homelessness and poverty and has elected dictatorships that have done nothing but piss billions of dollars down the drain, and now hoard it in "conservative provincial surplus" (overtaxation) for no apparent reason; as opposed to giving it back to the taxpayers of the Albertas, investing in public goods and services based on a sound economic plan; which is has never done before, but seems to be trying to figure a few things out, throw a few billion dollars around, in the 2006-07 budget.
Of course, all the best and good luck over the next 50+ years. But we'll tell you when your economy is truly worth something as a real economy. It's worth the price of crude (and natural gas until it runs out in a decade or so; which mandates finding another source of energy to convert the bitumen into synthetic crude right now, as well as getting the natural gas from the territories/Arctic piped down), the demand elsewhere, not in the Albertas. If/when production from our refineries on up and down the pipelines can and do increase production, not to mention what goes on in the rest of the world, the price of synthetic crude/bbl. out of the Albertas, Saskatchewans, Arctic, Atlantic Canadas, hopefully BC offshore soon*, and the price of crude/bbl. will drop. It's simply how supply and demand works and is a major problem when trying to base monetary/economic/fiscal policy on primary industries.
* BC will get offshore or the the rigs we paid everything for that the Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia "Ministries" of Finance (department of, where the real work gets done) will be shut down; which they won't so BC will get its offshore oil/gas developed.
The North Atlantic isn't exactly hospitable and if the Atlantic Canadas get to stick our offshore rigs in those waters then so does BC. If Saskatchewan gets 70% of the 100% of the royalties/revenues its provincial department of finance keeps from its oil taken into account (as per federal legislation and regulations that are worth used toilet paper at the moment) as provincial revenues to be applied against "equalization" and all other transfers, then so do the Newfoundland & Labrador (NL) and Nova Scotia (NS) departments of finance.
And it shouldn't be 70%, it should be 100% of all provincial revenues with no exceptions, ever, being applied against all transfers -- or you can forget about going back to the "10 province standard", which simply means including Alberta's revenues per capita to the national provincial revenues per capita, the number that sets the level at which a provincial department of finance has to drop below in its own revenues per capita to collect equalization.
OR, when we go back to the 10-province standard to calculate average provincial revenues per capita (own-source fiscal capacity, 10 different numbers added up then divided by 10 to get the average), then ALL natural resources, certainly Alberta's oil/gas royalties and revenues (from capital investment/employment), will be removed from the equation, will not be counted as provincial revenues at all, just as they aren't right now due to the FPS/five-province standard of "only" Ontario, Quebec, BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan's provincial revenues and only 33 provincial revenue sources in those 5 provinces establish the "average national average provincial revenues per capita" (just see one page at the Department of Finance Canada - Equalization Program ... and take it with a pound of salt, because it does not work as it claims to work and NL and NS with the usual, never any question of keeping 100% of our offshore oil/gas royalties and revenues, it's up to your governments to contract the land deals, even though it's "land" under federal waters, not our governments -- but that is not the issue and never has been other than via propaganda/lies, counting on the ignorance of "Canadians". The issue is that 70% of the 100% of the royalties/revenues the depts. of finance in NL and NS are supposed to be applied against equalization and all other transfers, but are not).
0% of the royalties/revenues the NS and NL (ultimately) depts. of finance do have and do keep will be applied against equalization welfare handouts or any other transfers for yet another ten years, but Saskatchewan got 70% of its royalties/revenues accounted for resulting in this:
Equalization Entitlements in 2005-06 $ per person
(Per person is also called per capita; same thing, the total divided by the population of each province in this case, but the confederate Dept. of Finance (a.k.a. "Finance Canada") doesn't bother to list the population estimate(s) they're using, so either can I to make sure that they're not playing any more games than usual.)
Code:
_______________________________________
2005-06 % of
Province $ each Total
_______________________________________
Prince Edward Island 1,996 21.93
New Brunswick 1,793 19.70
Newfoundland & Labrador 1,668 18.33
Nova Scotia 1,432 15.73
Manitoba 1,359 14.93
Québec 632 6.94
British Columbia 139 1.53
Saskatchewan 83 0.91
Ontario 0 0.00
Alberta 0 0.00
_______________________________________
TOTAL 9,102 100.00
_______________________________________
2005-06 % of
SUMMARY $ each Total
_______________________________________
Atlantic Total 6,889 75.69
Prairie-B.C. Total 1,581 17.37
Québec Total 632 6.94
_______________________________________
TOTAL 9,102 100.00
_______________________________________Source: Department of Finance Canada - Equalization Program
Date modified (by source): 2005-04-04
Last modified/checked (by me): 2006-01-25
_____
BC is collecting more (with a proper measure, percent share of the total per capita "equalization" transfers to every province but Ontario, as always. In 1964, changes were made to equalization, 70% of the 100% of revenues provincial governments make from resources are supposed to be applied against equalization transfers. As a result, Alberta's oil and gas bumped up the province's revenues enough that it no longer qualified for handouts from the Québec City-Windsor corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island, a.k.a. "Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia") than Saskatchewan is.
Equalization Entitlements – (2004-05, 2005-06) per person
Sorted by 2005-06 per person ($ millions)
Code:
____________________________________________
2004 2005 $ +/-
Prince Edward Island 1,776 1,996 +220
New Brunswick 1,537 1,793 +256
Newfoundland & Labrador 1,398 1,668 +270
Nova Scotia 1,223 1,432 +209
Manitoba 1,147 1,359 +212
Quebec 500 632 +132
British Columbia 197 139 - 58
Saskatchewan 464 83 -381
Ontario 0 0 0
Alberta 0 0 0
____________________________________________Source: Not Long For This World Finance "Canada" - Equalization Program
Date modified (by source): 2005-04-04
Last updated/checked (by me): 2005-01-25
_____
Nothing got "nailed" more than Saskatchewan did (not nailed; simply following the laws and regulations of the alleged "system" as Alberta was forced to in 1964 -- but no other province other than the ones that weren't collecting "equalization" welfare handouts: Ontario, Quebec and BC; and Saskatchewan as alleged last year, but as you can see, the number above to Saskatchewan is not $0 and $83 per person to Ontario would amount to $1,044,955,309 as of the October 1, 2005 population estimates) over the 2004 equalization renewal and ridiculous "Atlantic Accord", which should be the first thing Harper rips up.
You don't get to keep 100% of your provincial revenues (truly federal/union revenues in the case of the NL and NS offshore rigs; but not, the NL and NS governments keep 100% of the royalties/revenues) while also collecting welfare, which is exactly how the equalization system is supposed to work: as welfare to provincial "ministries" of finance and with no strings attached, at 100% of the entitlement level as though the revenues from natural resources (charged/contracted by your own provincial governments and nothing else) don't exist.
It's like winning the lottery and demanding to keep your welfare payments regardless of income -- and actually getting to keep 100% of welfare entitlements. "Ontario" (south) pays for 100% of the things, it's had it with the ridiculous side-deals, the hopeless mess of the "transfer system" that claims many things but does nothing but play political games with our lives and futures -- and yours.
As per usual, it would be one thing if they actually accomplished something positive, but they not only accomplish nothing positive, they screw your own economies up. Why would anyone want to pay for that? Like it or no, we're Canadians in South Ontario and have no problems with revenue sharing, but not when every other provincial department of finance gets to keep more of its own or our revenues per capita than we do, and it accomplishes far worse than nothing.
Alberta's contribution is neither appreciated nor ignored; anymore than the City of Toronto's contribution to the federation is appreciated (just ignored and turned upside-down and inside out with lies, while being spat and vomited on). It's the only comparison to make around Alberta regarding the Ontarios: City of Toronto. And get your documentation on the table for once, from as many sources as Ontario has, in the same measure of what fiscal imbalance means.
The only things that have "documented" what Alberta claims to pay out in revenues "to the federation" (are you taking our federal RCMP law enforcement into account? You cannot possibly pay for it, it's federal and I don't mean the FBI end, I mean the local and "provincial" law enforcement ends on down to general purpose/traffic cops, from recruiting to pensions and everyone/everything in between. With 907,655.59 square km of land and federal waters in the Great Lakes and thousands of internal lakes and waterways to patrol and 12,589,823 people to keep the peace over, Ontario pays for 100% of its provincial, regional and local law enforcement from top to bottom, bottom to top. With 1,357,743.08 square kilometers of land, federal water in the St. Lawrence and thousands of internal lakes and waterway to patrol and 7,616,645 people to keep the peace over, Québec pays for 100% of its provincial, regional and local law enforcement from top to bottom, bottom to top.
With only 639,987.12 square km of land and only 3,281,296 to keep the peace over, Alberta has federal-"provincial"/regional/local law enforcement all over the place. To even begin to make a comparison with Ontario or Québec, Alberta has to deduct those subsidies from Ontario and Québec taxpayers) come from allegations that have been printed in the likes of the Calgary Sun.
What does the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have to say about poor, poor Alberta getting 40% too much of its own revenues back, or Ontario getting 40% to little of its own revenues back?
Albertans have the habit of never documenting sources (other than sometimes the "newz media" -- which does nothing but sell stories to their target morons to make as much money as possible selling ad space; there is no truth in the news and no news in the truth) about anything.
Albertans have a habit of ignoring every reliable source around to try to beat their chests.
It doesn't change reality. It doesn't make anyone else (with a working brain, who matters) believe any of it. It makes Albertans look very stupid and that's all it accomplishes.
Just for starters, forget this document; it states right at the top that it's based on existing studies, research and academia. Just go through the document to get the names of every document it's based on, read all of them after sorting them by release date, as cited throughout the text, ignoring the text and just looking for footnotes/references to other documents that caused one sentence or paragraph in the document below to exist; then go the the INDEPENDENT POLICY RESEARCH and REFERENCES AND RELEVANT WEB SITES and read all of it -- and then read the document:
Ontario Chamber of Commerce (http://www.occ.on.ca/)
Fairness In Confederation
Fiscal Imbalance: Driving Ontario to ‘Have-Not’ Status.
David MacKinnon, August, 2005
PDF http://www.occ.on.ca/2publications/reports/docs/FICReport_082005.pdf
And that's just as of August 2005 from one source that pulled together many, which then (the document) got the Canadian Chamber of Commerce involved and the Atlantic [Canadas] Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) involved even more.
Where is even one of Alberta's equivalent mountains of documentation about its alleged fiscal imbalance? You'll (whomever, but particularly Albertans) find some of it documented in the report above, with sources cited, not pulled from thin air (or written in an op-ed to sell ad space for as much money as possible with sensationalism/hype) and coming across as nothing but whining and crying and stomping and rolling on the floor -- and over your own history. Alberta started the endless loop of complaint in gripe-fests for "equalization", against the wishes of Ontario, but you won and now you think you get to bitch about it?
I'm only 41 and I was alive when Alberta was a "have-not" province on equalization welfare handouts. Ontario was against it because it never has and never will accomplish anything. It was never designed to. Money transfers aren't the problem, they're the only way to have an economic union that works and an American economist helped to get equalization going:
Equalization: Welfare Trap or Helping Hand? - Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), Frontier Center for Public Policy (FCPP), Montreal Economic Institute (MEI). Many other related documents available from this link; but nothing on the conference itself. It tells you to read "Fiscal Equalization Revisited." It's written by the American (James Buchanan, Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics (1986) who helped to get equalization going, revisiting the concept of equalization in general after 50 years.
The concept of money redistribution is not socialist; it's totally capitalist if it's done properly. It just never has been done properly and has been distorted beyond all recognition by politicians at the local, regional, "provincial"/territorial and confederate/federal level made up of side-deals, add-ons, backroom wheeling and dealing by politicians -- not us.
They've destroyed the transfer systems creating a monster that is almost beyond comprehension. But that's the issue -- not the general concept of wealth distribution -- due to being in an economic union. So we either split the economic union up (you're not getting any of our land; if you want out of Canada, whomever, then use your constitutional right to separate yourself and anything you own, from our land and leave to another country; if you can find one that is up to your "standards", whatever they are) or, for starters, scrap the mess of transfer systems and replace it all with one simple, transparent, accountable transfer that does exactly what it says it does: equalizes and for certain things only that stimulate economic growth instead of doing the exact opposite.
We are looking for positive solutions and are working with everyone and everything who is doing the same. We are identifying problems and documenting them with skids of irrefutable documentation so that nothing can dispute anything; but to fix, not to bitch or hoard or just basically come across as Albertan parrots of politicians and "newz media".
Re: RE: Ontario vs. Alberta?
Was? Sh...y "province" is quite a generalization and it's unfortunate that so many Albertans are so intent on isolating themselves, making fools of themselves (and why in this forum?) but the land (provincial boundaries) didn't do it and Alberta has a lot going for it.
It just makes so much out of it, so arrogantly, holding a pair of 2's and heading for three, but claiming to be holding 5 aces; even around the U.S. as though it's Texas or something.
It remains to be seen whether the Albertas will piss away billions more in crude (mostly slurry to move it through the pipelines) royalties for another 50+ years or will wake up, not only claim to know which century this is, and where it is, but prove it.
If you're (um, open post, nothing personal) curious or become curious, hit www.2Ontario.com for overviews, and details around whatever.
And if you know of an equalivant in BC, please post it. Um, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that I haven't found an equivalent to explain everything that BC has going for it; in one place.
That's probably a first; on the web. People are people in person, unless they're insane or are non-persons like terrorists and other unspeakables.
But I can't recall ever seeing anyone in the Canadas ever calling "Ontario" (which Ontario?) nice on the web. Don't you know that it's the cause of all eeeevil in the universe? Maybe you visited.
And right back at BC. But on the people level, aside from the jerks that are everywhere, even in the smallest communities; most impressions are very wrong and most people all over the world are nice. As Grandma always told us, "Treat people as you expect to be treated yourself." But the web wasn't around then.
The way people behave when they're pretty much anonymous and what they're like in the real world, are usually very different things. I've found anyway.
It's the politicians (stuck in dysfunctional systems and structures; still usually well-meaning people, aside from the usual lunatics and non-persons) who divide us ... and local news media, selling stories to sell ad space for as much money as possible.
If enough people believe that the sky is green with purple polka dots, someone will capitalize on it (if it's allowed in the country) and "prove it" and provide stories about it to profit from it.
Thanks for a first, that I can recall. Ontario nice? From a Canadian not living in the Ontarios? You must at least hate Toronto. It's mandatory.
JonB2004 said:
Was?
Sh...y "province" is quite a generalization and it's unfortunate that so many Albertans are so intent on isolating themselves, making fools of themselves (and why in this forum?) but the land (provincial boundaries) didn't do it and Alberta has a lot going for it.It just makes so much out of it, so arrogantly, holding a pair of 2's and heading for three, but claiming to be holding 5 aces; even around the U.S. as though it's Texas or something.
It remains to be seen whether the Albertas will piss away billions more in crude (mostly slurry to move it through the pipelines) royalties for another 50+ years or will wake up, not only claim to know which century this is, and where it is, but prove it.
JonB2004 said:
If you're (um, open post, nothing personal) curious or become curious, hit www.2Ontario.com for overviews, and details around whatever.
And if you know of an equalivant in BC, please post it. Um, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that I haven't found an equivalent to explain everything that BC has going for it; in one place.
JonB2004 said:
That's probably a first; on the web. People are people in person, unless they're insane or are non-persons like terrorists and other unspeakables.
But I can't recall ever seeing anyone in the Canadas ever calling "Ontario" (which Ontario?
) nice on the web. Don't you know that it's the cause of all eeeevil in the universe? Maybe you visited. And right back at BC. But on the people level, aside from the jerks that are everywhere, even in the smallest communities; most impressions are very wrong and most people all over the world are nice. As Grandma always told us, "Treat people as you expect to be treated yourself." But the web wasn't around then.
The way people behave when they're pretty much anonymous and what they're like in the real world, are usually very different things. I've found anyway.
It's the politicians (stuck in dysfunctional systems and structures; still usually well-meaning people, aside from the usual lunatics and non-persons) who divide us ... and local news media, selling stories to sell ad space for as much money as possible.
If enough people believe that the sky is green with purple polka dots, someone will capitalize on it (if it's allowed in the country) and "prove it" and provide stories about it to profit from it.
Thanks for a first, that I can recall. Ontario nice? From a Canadian not living in the Ontarios? You must at least hate Toronto. It's mandatory.
Don't worry, S-Ranger. I hate Toronto and everything within a 10 km radius. That are also some other towns that are real shitholes. When I mean Ontario is nice, I mean there's trees, lakes, etc. In Alberta there's nothing but flat fields of grain for hundreds of miles.
Re: RE: Ontario vs. Alberta?
Says what? You? And I/anyone else has what reason to believe you given that Alberta is full of mad cow dung and has never gained more in population even over three months (a quarter) than the GTA let alone the entire rest of the Canadas. Nor is it projected to out to 2031.
Statistics Canada claims to have the January 1, 2006 population out on its home page. But it's still at October 1, 2005.
Go ahead and read it:
Population of the Canadas[1]
pr Updated postcensal estimates.
pp Preliminary postcensal estimates.
1. These estimates are based on the 2001 census counts adjusted for net undercoverage
Derived from: Statistics Canada - The Daily, December 21, 2005
Last modified (by source): 2005-12-21
_____
24,480 is the population growth for Alberta in the third quarter of 2005, not 25,000. 24.4 doesn't round up to 25 and there are no fourth quarter numbers out yet; from anything credible. And don't argue with me about it, boy, take it up with Statistics Canada.
The usual. "Ontario" (south, mostly the GTA) gained double the population. And 83,600 for the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island. Even if it were 25,000 on the dot (rather odd, looks like it was pulled from a hat, 25.0 thousand or something and rounding from 24.4 thousand to 25.0 thousand?) is more than the population growth in "every province and territory" (don't bother with "every other province and territory" -- negative "growth"; it's cheating, which Albertans are still incompetent trying to do)? And you can see and add up the out-migration above. SK+MB lost 578, the Atlantic Canadas lost 258. That's a total of 836 people, which, believe it or not, is nowhere near 25,000. And neither Ontario nor BC lost any population.
48,413 (ON) + 16,688 (BC) = 65,101 in population growth over three months and is not a loss of population: believe it or not. It's possible and even likely that some total losers in the north Ontarios and north BCs moved to the Albertas; and we replaced them with well-educated, skilled human capital from all over the world into our city-regions and dumped the losers on you and your pathetic primary-based economy. It's the usual and begone.
So feel free to stick to your theory about "stealing" the losers from the north Ontarios and north BCs, instead of going with reality, that people with educations and real skills showed up in the Albertas from all over the world for the first time in a decade. Stick with your story, it's fine by us and it is the usual.
Take every freaking loser in the Canadas (not that it's some choice; freedom of movement and gainful employment is a constitutional right in the Canadas; but we do have to send people with brains to parts of the Albertas that matter to us, to offset the hick/loser factor of the usual migration to the Albertas; to run things, boss you around -- because you're oblivious hicks and we have investments there mainly via the U.S., but they want us to send our experienced human capital there because it's a lot easier than having Americans immigrate and we both profit from plundering the Albertas, because that's what it sits around doing and is in the business of and has been in the business of for its entire sorry existence; exporting raw/semi-processed commodities and importing the losers from all over the rural Canadas as labor -- to where they fit right in) as long as the demand is around to employ them, and at least contribute something to the economic union.
Get un-used to posting your mad cow shite without a clue and take your propaganda elsewhere. You're starting to get on my nerves -- which doesn't take much around Albertan boneheads.
But population isn't jobs.
Economic indicators, by province and territory (monthly and quarterly), Feb. 2006
SA = Seasonally adjusted.
x = suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act
Derived from: Statistics Canada - Canadian Statistics - Economic indicators, by province and territory (select each province/territory from the left sidebar for breakdowns)
Date modified (by source): 2006-03-29
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-04-02
_____
As per usual, the "Albertas" (Newfies, mostly, every loser in the Canadas in worthless economies) are pulling up the rear.
Don't wonder why no one believes Albertans about anything. But do get your "source" out. Calgary Sun? The moose in your field told you?
You have to be a total moron to ever believe that Alberta will ever gain more in population over any period of time than the entire rest of the Canadas (Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Loser Mainland-south Vancouver Island combined) does. Or real economic growth or anything else but hype. And we can't wait for Stockwell Day to take over for Klein. What an improvement. Replace a drunk with a totally oblivious fool. Are any Bombardier sea-doo events planned? We suggest a motorcycle the next time. Falling off those every other second is fun!
Congratulations on proving the total idiocy of Albertans, yet again -- and in the Ontaro forum no less. You might want to scurry off to a forum where no one knows anything -- like the Alberta forum for example.
Huge, huh? How much is that out of the "25,000" even that Alberta got in population growth in the fourth quarter of 2005 "over the entire population growth of every province and territory in Canada", statistically? "Huge" means what, statistically in Stampede Town?
Is that a fact, Stampede Towner? [It means rodeo clown.] Well do tell. For the first time in a decade, Alberta gained more in foreign immigration in the quarter above than in any inter-provincial/territorial migration -- and good for "y'all." Some people with brains might pull your heads out of your arses.
Hank C said:
Says what? You? And I/anyone else has what reason to believe you given that Alberta is full of mad cow dung and has never gained more in population even over three months (a quarter) than the GTA let alone the entire rest of the Canadas. Nor is it projected to out to 2031.
Statistics Canada claims to have the January 1, 2006 population out on its home page. But it's still at October 1, 2005.
Go ahead and read it:
Population of the Canadas[1]
Code:
____________________________________________________________________________________
July to
Sept.
July 1, October 1, July 1, October 1, Real Change
JURISDICTION 2004pp 2004pr 2005pp 2005pp 2004 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ontario 12,407,347 12,454,171 12,541,410 12,589,823 46,824 48,413
Québec 7,547,728 7,566,136 7,598,146 7,616,645 18,408 18,499
British Columbia 4,201,867 4,215,695 4,254,522 4,271,210 13,828 16,688
Alberta 3,204,780 3,215,869 3,256,816 3,281,296 11,089 24,480
Manitoba 1,170,229 1,173,358 1,177,556 1,178,109 3,129 553
Saskatchewan 994,300 995,351 994,126 992,995 1,051 -1,131
Nova Scotia 937,509 938,821 937,889 938,116 1,312 227
New Brunswick 752,078 752,313 752,006 751,726 235 -280
Newfoundland & Labrador 517,284 517,112 515,961 515,591 -172 -370
Prince Edward Island 137,861 137,762 138,113 138,278 -99 165
Northwest Territories 42,851 42,973 42,982 42,965 122 -17
Yukon Territory 30,856 30,791 30,988 31,235 -65 247
Nunavut 29,673 29,647 29,992 30,133 -26 141
_____________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 31,974,363 32,069,999 32,270,507 32,378,122 95,636 107,615
_____________________________________________________________________________________
July to
Sept.
July 1, October 1, July 1, October 1, Real Change
SUMMARY 2004pp 2004pr 2005pp 2005pp 2004 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 19,955,075 20,139,556 20,020,307 20,206,468 65,232 66,912
(ON+QC+BC) Total 24,156,942 24,394,078 24,236,002 24,477,678 79,060 83,600
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 12,019,288 12,049,692 12,130,951 12,171,654 30,404 40,703
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 7,817,421 7,833,997 7,876,429 7,900,444 16,576 24,015
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 5,369,309 5,384,578 5,428,498 5,452,400 15,269 23,902
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB 2,164,529 2,168,709 2,171,682 2,171,104 4,180 -578
Atlantic Total 2,344,732 2,346,008 2,343,969 2,343,711 1,276 -258
Territory Total 103,380 103,411 103,962 104,333 31 371
_____________________________________________________________________________________pp Preliminary postcensal estimates.
1. These estimates are based on the 2001 census counts adjusted for net undercoverage
Derived from: Statistics Canada - The Daily, December 21, 2005
Last modified (by source): 2005-12-21
_____
24,480 is the population growth for Alberta in the third quarter of 2005, not 25,000. 24.4 doesn't round up to 25 and there are no fourth quarter numbers out yet; from anything credible. And don't argue with me about it, boy, take it up with Statistics Canada.
The usual. "Ontario" (south, mostly the GTA) gained double the population. And 83,600 for the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island. Even if it were 25,000 on the dot (rather odd, looks like it was pulled from a hat, 25.0 thousand or something and rounding from 24.4 thousand to 25.0 thousand?) is more than the population growth in "every province and territory" (don't bother with "every other province and territory" -- negative "growth"; it's cheating, which Albertans are still incompetent trying to do)? And you can see and add up the out-migration above. SK+MB lost 578, the Atlantic Canadas lost 258. That's a total of 836 people, which, believe it or not, is nowhere near 25,000. And neither Ontario nor BC lost any population.
48,413 (ON) + 16,688 (BC) = 65,101 in population growth over three months and is not a loss of population: believe it or not. It's possible and even likely that some total losers in the north Ontarios and north BCs moved to the Albertas; and we replaced them with well-educated, skilled human capital from all over the world into our city-regions and dumped the losers on you and your pathetic primary-based economy. It's the usual and begone.
So feel free to stick to your theory about "stealing" the losers from the north Ontarios and north BCs, instead of going with reality, that people with educations and real skills showed up in the Albertas from all over the world for the first time in a decade. Stick with your story, it's fine by us and it is the usual.
Take every freaking loser in the Canadas (not that it's some choice; freedom of movement and gainful employment is a constitutional right in the Canadas; but we do have to send people with brains to parts of the Albertas that matter to us, to offset the hick/loser factor of the usual migration to the Albertas; to run things, boss you around -- because you're oblivious hicks and we have investments there mainly via the U.S., but they want us to send our experienced human capital there because it's a lot easier than having Americans immigrate and we both profit from plundering the Albertas, because that's what it sits around doing and is in the business of and has been in the business of for its entire sorry existence; exporting raw/semi-processed commodities and importing the losers from all over the rural Canadas as labor -- to where they fit right in) as long as the demand is around to employ them, and at least contribute something to the economic union.
Get un-used to posting your mad cow shite without a clue and take your propaganda elsewhere. You're starting to get on my nerves -- which doesn't take much around Albertan boneheads.
But population isn't jobs.
Economic indicators, by province and territory (monthly and quarterly), Feb. 2006
Code:
__________________________________________
Employment % of
JURISDICTION SA, thousands TOTAL
__________________________________________
Ontario 6,431.8 39.35
Québec 3,749.4 22.94
British Columbia 2,175.9 13.31
Alberta 1,835.3 11.23
Manitoba 586.1 3.59
Saskatchewan 482.2 2.95
Nova Scotia 441.7 2.70
New Brunswick 359.2 2.20
Newfoundland & Labrador 215.2 1.32
Prince Edward Island 69.0 0.42
Northwest Territories x n/a
Yukon Territory x n/a
Nunavat Territory x n/a
__________________________________________
TOTAL 16,345.8 100.00
__________________________________________
Employment % of
SUMMARY SA, thousands TOTAL
__________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 10,181.2 62.29
(ON+QC+BC) Total 12,357.1 75.60
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 6,164.6 37.71
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 3,988.7 24.40
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 2,903.6 17.76
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB 1,068.3 6.54
Atlantic Total 1,085.1 6.64
Territory Total x n/a
__________________________________________x = suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act
Derived from: Statistics Canada - Canadian Statistics - Economic indicators, by province and territory (select each province/territory from the left sidebar for breakdowns)
Date modified (by source): 2006-03-29
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-04-02
_____
As per usual, the "Albertas" (Newfies, mostly, every loser in the Canadas in worthless economies) are pulling up the rear.
Don't wonder why no one believes Albertans about anything. But do get your "source" out. Calgary Sun? The moose in your field told you?
You have to be a total moron to ever believe that Alberta will ever gain more in population over any period of time than the entire rest of the Canadas (Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Loser Mainland-south Vancouver Island combined) does. Or real economic growth or anything else but hype. And we can't wait for Stockwell Day to take over for Klein. What an improvement. Replace a drunk with a totally oblivious fool. Are any Bombardier sea-doo events planned? We suggest a motorcycle the next time. Falling off those every other second is fun!
Congratulations on proving the total idiocy of Albertans, yet again -- and in the Ontaro forum no less. You might want to scurry off to a forum where no one knows anything -- like the Alberta forum for example.
Hank C said:
Huge, huh? How much is that out of the "25,000" even that Alberta got in population growth in the fourth quarter of 2005 "over the entire population growth of every province and territory in Canada", statistically? "Huge" means what, statistically in Stampede Town?
Is that a fact, Stampede Towner? [It means rodeo clown.] Well do tell. For the first time in a decade, Alberta gained more in foreign immigration in the quarter above than in any inter-provincial/territorial migration -- and good for "y'all." Some people with brains might pull your heads out of your arses.
Re: RE: Ontario vs. Alberta?
I wasn't worried; just trying to be nice.
Congratulations. Planning any terrorism anytime soon? Hate is a very strong word. And what are you doing in this forum if you hate 45.57% of the population of the Ontarios?
There certainly are. Moosehat, Medicine Jaw, Burnaby, Slurrey, Richmond, East Hastings, Port Moody, Victoria is full of junkies, Old Calcutta, Detroit, south Chicago, Harlem, New Orleans (now), the endless slums of Rio, most of Asia, most of Africa, Paris of late let alone the medieval sh..holes of Europe, Indonesia, and a big fat list of worthless sh..holes in the Canadas stealing our revenues.
Get a life and what's a "10 km radius" worth around here?
Show me your Dr. Evil map and a radius from what that means anything?
Uh huh. Lakes don't make money. Trees don't make money to pay your bills, communist.
Try to be nice around moronic "Canadians", treat others as you expect to be treated yourself, and get hate in the face -- due to total obliviousness.
Take a hike. But wherever you are, don't get lost in a whole 10 km.
JonB2004 said:
I wasn't worried; just trying to be nice.
Congratulations. Planning any terrorism anytime soon? Hate is a very strong word. And what are you doing in this forum if you hate 45.57% of the population of the Ontarios?
There certainly are. Moosehat, Medicine Jaw, Burnaby, Slurrey, Richmond, East Hastings, Port Moody, Victoria is full of junkies, Old Calcutta, Detroit, south Chicago, Harlem, New Orleans (now), the endless slums of Rio, most of Asia, most of Africa, Paris of late let alone the medieval sh..holes of Europe, Indonesia, and a big fat list of worthless sh..holes in the Canadas stealing our revenues.
Get a life and what's a "10 km radius" worth around here?
Show me your Dr. Evil map and a radius from what that means anything?
JonB2004 said:
Uh huh. Lakes don't make money. Trees don't make money to pay your bills, communist.
Try to be nice around moronic "Canadians", treat others as you expect to be treated yourself, and get hate in the face -- due to total obliviousness.
Take a hike. But wherever you are, don't get lost in a whole 10 km.
Yes, I suppose the Provinces of Ontario and Alberta are arguably the "richest" provinces in Canada. However, I see no reason for me to "bash away", being a resident of the Province of British Columbia. I would argue that the economy in this province is going quite strong (while perhaps not as strong as some other provinces), and it is a beautiful province (naturally speaking) as well.Hank C said:
Is this just an inter-provincial rivalry spawned aeons ago and perpetuated for humerous purposes, as it is in Australia, or is it actually a serious hatred/disdain/intolerance for others across borders?
btw fiveparadox, that signature constantly amuses me, I have neglected to mention it on previous occasions, but I remark to it's idealist accuracy, and hope one day, some lunatic wastes a bullet on our current PM.
btw fiveparadox, that signature constantly amuses me, I have neglected to mention it on previous occasions, but I remark to it's idealist accuracy, and hope one day, some lunatic wastes a bullet on our current PM.
Re: RE: Ontario vs. Alberta?
Look like its getting a little heated (don't know why), and S-Ranger is either twisting facts or ignoring them.
Actually from October 1st to Jan 1st (can ya figure out which quarter that is?), Alberta gained approx 25,100 in population which was 0.76% growth. In contrast in the same quarter, Ontario experienced a population gain approx less than 10,000 which is a 0.08 % pop growth. Your GTA may have gained more due to migration from the rest of Ontario, but in real numbers you province experienced not even half the real pop growth of Alberta. (Yes I am aware Ontario had higher numbers in the "summer quarters", although percentage wise Alberta dwarfs it).
As you may recall I was referring to 4th quarter numbers, boy, you are referring to third quarter numbers and attemping to discredit me with em. But here are your StatsCan numbers :
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060328/d060328e.htm
Well out of that 25,100, approx 17,000 of it was from inter-provincial migration. We're getting a good mix of folks from all over Canada (and the world), as oppose to Ontario and specifically the GTA which seems intent on packing in the entire 3rd world population into its smog filled, mountainless habitat.
S-Ranger said:
Look like its getting a little heated (don't know why), and S-Ranger is either twisting facts or ignoring them.
Actually from October 1st to Jan 1st (can ya figure out which quarter that is?), Alberta gained approx 25,100 in population which was 0.76% growth. In contrast in the same quarter, Ontario experienced a population gain approx less than 10,000 which is a 0.08 % pop growth. Your GTA may have gained more due to migration from the rest of Ontario, but in real numbers you province experienced not even half the real pop growth of Alberta. (Yes I am aware Ontario had higher numbers in the "summer quarters", although percentage wise Alberta dwarfs it).
As you may recall I was referring to 4th quarter numbers, boy, you are referring to third quarter numbers and attemping to discredit me with em. But here are your StatsCan numbers :
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060328/d060328e.htm
S-Ranger said:
Well out of that 25,100, approx 17,000 of it was from inter-provincial migration. We're getting a good mix of folks from all over Canada (and the world), as oppose to Ontario and specifically the GTA which seems intent on packing in the entire 3rd world population into its smog filled, mountainless habitat.
Re: RE: Ontario vs. Alberta?
It may have something to do with the fact that this is the Ontario forum, for discussion of whatever a "local" Ontario issue is; and that you hicks are all over the place spewing propaganda (hick-spew) based on ignorance -- so I only bother with this forum and don't like it when invaders who have myriad other forums to publish their hick-spew in, totally ignore the rules of the site and do so in the only forum I can (barely) manage to tolerate on the entire Web anymore around "Canadian" economics<->socio-economics/demographics, so politics; even though the Canadian Content forums are the best I've ever seen around (lack of oblivious hicks, no same-sex marriage hick-spew was anywhere in sight in the Canadian Politics forum when I showed up and started reading, no Iraq war had broken out in the Canadian Politics forum, only one oblivious, brainwashed Albertan was posting; and getting buried alive with reality, which I was more than happy to help out with) but that's all changed.
It'll take a team of experts to try to tackle the "Canadian" Politics forum these days and all the other analysts and others I know with more than "a clue" have much better things to do than post the simple facts only to end up with oblivious hick-spew in their faces: including myself, which is why I don't bother with the "Canadian" (hick) Politics anymore either; the only other forum I ever had any interest in on this site, which was quite a shocker when I first started reading it; in a good way. Now (the last 6 months or so) the level of ignorance is downright embarrassing and impossible to tackle without teams of experts who don't care whether y'all are totally oblivious about absolutely everything or not. But good luck finding anyone who will bother. What this site needs now is a members-only Canadian Facts & Stats forum that no oblivious hicks can get into to post hick-spew: just facts from the sources of all sources with the only "debate" taking place being via PMs and only in the case of allegedly incorrect facts.
Then those who know something won't have to repeat themselves over and over and over again, to no avail. They can simply reference posts in the Canadian Facts & Stats forum and take it or leave it, hicks. There is no "debating" reality. The sky is not purple with green polka dots and I will not "debate" that with any stupid moron or any other reality/fact. Take it up with the sources if you/whomever happen to "disagree" with reality; which is quite common, is a way of life for most in the Canadas.
Read the rules, read the terms of service. There is no "Ontario vs. Alberta", it's more like Alberta vs. the Atlantic Canadas (just take a look at the tables below around population; merge the Atlantic Canadas into one province and it's next in line after the Ontarios, Quebecs, BCs, Albertas, and far closer to the Albertas than the Albertas is to the BCs.
And the Atlantic Canadas are more promising regarding growing real economies as opposed to stupidly exporting raw/semi-processed volatile commodities (and all of the new full-time jobs, spin-offs, expanded markets, expanded revenue bases) that go along with the stupidity of the Albertas exporting everything from cows on the hoof to American meat processing plants (and RE-IMPORTING no less, throwing even those value-added jobs away and then bitching about it in the 21st century, in 2003 when the U.S. and 35 or so other countries slapped a "live cattle import ban" and beef ban for starters, on all of the Canadas over one mad cow in the Albertas and then your "conservatives" ran to the confederates for handouts to get "federal" meat processing plants built as though Alberta had never heard of private investment, had never thought about how stupid it was to be exporting live on the hoof, which is bad enough alone, but also RE-IMPORTING, which is called selling low and buying high on top of handing basic full-time value-added jobs and spin-offs away for no apparent reason; which is a good way to go bankrupt, which is exactly what the Albertas would be without our oil industries; and only since the 1970's has it actually paid a bit more into "the federation" than it's taken out of it) to synthetic crude from bitumen and what's left of its natural gas (not much); raw/semi-processed -- off to real economies/markets.
And it's been over 50 years since we established the oil industry in the Albertas, which is still heavily subsidized -- yet Libya is doing better, with almost double the population of the Albertas in what is otherwise a desert country with nothing but oil revenues for income and it's never received a cent from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island in handouts from the "Canadian" confederates.
Every Libyan who wants one (isn't a nomad) is given a house or "apartment" (what we call condos, but with no maintenance fees either) -- because that government is truly RICH. And it shows. There is zero homelessness in Libya, there is zero poverty. And it's a desert country with nothing but crude that it's not stupid enough to export raw. It takes the refinery and petrochemical plant jobs, gets all the value it can get out of its desert economy -- before exporting.
"Alberta" (as if; which "Alberta"?) doesn't even do that around its COWS and poverty and homelessness is RIFE, while the Klein Dynasty sits on almost the entire GDP of the Canadas (over $30 BILLION) in "conservative surplus" (say what? Real Conservatives call "surplus" over-taxation) stuffed into various slush funds doing nothing -- just as Alberta governments have done ever since the foreign oil companies showed up, ripped you off because you're stupid hicks (look it up and its synonyms; "provincial unsophisticated simpleton bumpkinly rustic rural bucolic yokel rube yahoo hayseed chawbacons" is a bit tedious when hicks covers all of it; and hillbillies and rednecks too, but those are American terms that have never been used here by anyone but Canadian prairie hicks), due to lots of experience around something called capitalism, which requires fools, suckers and hicks, who basically live in the third world, and supply the real economies of whatever economic union(s) with the raw/semi-processed commodities they need to create their real economies; along with imports from other third world countries.
If/when Alberta is ever truly moderately clever let alone "rich"; we'll know about it in Toronto before "y'all" will.
But you (Albertans in general, with many years of unpleasant experience; and now it's impossible to escape even in the Ontario forum on the best Web forums around) can't even stick to your own thread in the Ontario forum. What's with the Alberta-only spew you posted right after "Alberta vs. Ontario"? Where was the comparison to anything in the Ontarios?
Who gives a crap? Go spew it where someone stupid/small enough will care; like in the Alberta forum, for example. Not here. You went off-topic of your first post/thread, in this forum (with an oh-so-clever thread topic that you then totally ignored), in your second post about nothing that has anything to do with the Ontarios and nothing that anyone here gives a rat's arse about.
"Big" development in puny little Edmonton amounts to nothing here. You're hicks, you have no clue what real development is, let alone in this century. Take it up with Mississauga or the like; which is in the Ontarios, connected to the west end of the municipality of Toronto. Take it up with York Region or any real development in some comparison; which is what the thread you created is allegedly about -- not just spewing Alberta propaganda off in the Ontario forum.
What a surprise; again, and from a Stampede Towner no less. Read the sources of the facts. They are not "mine" and you hicks use that ridiculous "argument" every time you get shoved between a rock and a hard place with no room to wiggle, no way to spew propaganda because the facts, with clearly marked sources, not "my facts" -- don't allow any wiggle room. And aside from trying to make it personal (send a pm, personal message; it's what they're for) the next "argument" is that your brain is too small to keep more than one thought in it, to get an overall context (my posts are "too long"), with verifiable facts from THE sources or all (public) facts, as far as public facts go; which is all we can publish in a forum like this.
And you're the one who didn't read anything; as usual, Stampede Town. And you're in the wrong forum and didn't even stick the the subject of your own thread. You stated no source, which is the usual around hicks, just spewing lies based on total obliviousness/propaganda that you all parrot almost to the exact word, because you have no brains of your own. But I'm doing what? Read the name and purpose of this forum again and check my location.
Can I figure what out? You're a bit out of your league, let alone in the wrong forum. Or did you mean October 1st to December 31st and not notice that StatsCON states "October to December" (not January) in the link you finally provided?
And what's with "approx" this and "approx" that? Can't you do basic arithmetic? And what's next? Would you like to compare pointless land masses of the alleged "provinces" while you're at it? And perhaps get your own provincial police force for a change given that you're so "rich". Losers.
"Approx" doesn't cut it around alleged "facts". You post something like I do, below, and above in other posts, and the sources of the information so that I/anyone can check on it all. You do the work if you intend to state ANYTHING in this forum or I will fry your ass. Rather, you'll fry your own due to what my tagline/"signature" states.
And this is what you stated:
Remember that last part. It's actually 25,063 for the Albertas and 19,734 for the rest of the Canadas combined -- but only after "adding" the negative numbers of OUT-MIGRATION from, well take a look at the tables below.
And what is the release date of your (now) source? StatsCON had the alleged January 1, 2006 population estimates right on its home page at the time; but as per usual the link was screwed up and it was still pointing to the exact table I posted (minus the "percentage" crap, converted into real numbers, 3rd quarter and with that crap also debunked), when I posted it.
Your original "statements" were made on March 31st, 2006. You backed it up with nothing (typical of ignorant hicks, particularly Albertans, in my on-line experiences, along with thinking that the "news media" amounts to anything credible when there is no truth in the news and there is no news in the truth) and Statistics Canada did not have the fourth "quarter" (as if it matters around TOTAL population in these mess of "a federation" let alone percentages, over a whole three months) data on their site on that date. Nor had they sent anything out in subscriptions of The Daily other than a screw-up that ruined all of the third quarter data; particularly around Alberta.
For the first time in, I don't know how many years now because they screwed the 3rd quarter document totally, when they claimed to release the January 1, 2006 population estimates (with the exact same 3rd quarter numbers; it was the The Daily, December 21, 2005 with one of the 3rd quarter tables but the rest destroyed claiming to be the January 1, 2006 information) actually gained lots of international migrants in the 3rd quarter; which is quite unusual and is the only way you hicks, look it up, are ever going to become worldly, figure out which century this is in the real world around real economies, lose the sexism, racism, homophobia and discrimination y'all claim not to have and so forth. The original Q3 document also had G-7 population and growth comparisons and plenty more -- until StatsCan't screwed it all up with a link to nothing, claiming "the latest" (January 1, 2006) population estimates, but pointing to a now-mangled 3rd quarter Daily document -- missing most of the good stuff it had when it was originally released.
Too bad for you for not posting a source. It's no one's job but yours to do your research and back it up before you spew. Next time, try this and do it yourself:
Population of the Canadas, January 1, 2006[1]
And Fourth quarter (October 1 to December 31) 2005 population grow compared to fourth quarter 2004 population growth
pr Updated postcensal estimates.
pp Preliminary postcensal estimates.
1. These estimates are based on the 2001 census counts adjusted for net undercoverage
Derived from: Statistics Canada - The Daily, March 28, 2006
Last modified (by source): 2006-03-30
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-05-03
_____
I did it for you, this time, because it was already done. But it was not done when you posted anything. Only the (um, for general public publication, for free) Q3 tables were -- and you didn't state ANY source let alone a credible source, and it's no one's job to do your research to claim whatever you think you're going to claim (particularly in this forum) but YOURS.
And if you could read, you would know that and would have learned far more than just one business/financial quarter's worth of information in the process and would have answered the question posed, along with the evidence.
Why is Alberta receiving about 40% more of its revenues per capita in transfers this fiscal year (and last) back from the confederates than Ontario is?
Don't bitch to me about "twisting" anything, let alone "avoiding" your ALLEGATIONS around Q4-2005, which is not all I posted because one quarter means nothing around total populations and total populations also mean nothing alone; as my posts also illustrated had you bothered to read anything.
What about Africa's population? Plenty of countries beat all of the Canadas in 2005 to 2006 population growth. And 25% of the population growth (pulled from thin air; probably more) are going to die in the next year. Then they'll out-populate us again with ten or more times as many births (who won't live a month let alone a year; but that's another stat) and "migration" as refugees from one war zone to the next, and wherever they hear foreign aid is at to get some drinking water and such; but population really matters; and around a business/financial quarter in "a country" that is not oriented to itself but is oriented to the U.S., region by region right across the real board, where 80% (or so) of whatever "Canadians" are huddle along the borders of the U.S., within 100 miles or kilometers of it (on land; we have a bit of water separating us from our main trading partners in the south Ontarios, but the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway works to ship raw, pre-processed and even many finished goods around, with over 40% of all trade, in commerce, between the U.S. and "Canada" using a 4-lane vintage 1938 suspension bridge over the Detroit River -- but thank god we have that massive bridge to PEI to, um, ship their potatoes out with?).
Population means nothing on its own, which is why I included the most basic economic indicator that exists, real GDP, with population stats that do mean something (but are not "the latest"; not around anything free). 2004 GDPs and populations are reasonably reliable around the Canadas, U.S., for free. You won't find any 2005 GDPs (GSPs, same difference, proper label and 50 sub-national jurisdictions with less than 10 times more the population of the Canadas, with its ridiculous "provinces") for the U.S. at the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Web site yet, let alone StatsCan't/StatsCON, so who cares about anything you posted, or rather didn't post?
I just posted it above and only mildly debunked/un-twisted.
Aside from the population TOTALS in the Ontarios (93% of the population of the Ontarios and 87% of the Quebecs were in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor in the 2001 Census) -- see the SUMMARY where "Prairies (AB+MB+SK)" are summarized? Does it look like the prairies gained more in population than the Windsor-Quebec City corridor ("Ontario" and "Quebec") and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island ("British Columbia") in the "ON+QC+BC" row, to you?
ON+QC+BC (Windsor-Quebec City corridor and the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island) gained 25,018, the prairies (AB+SK+MB) gained 23,237 -- in total population and in estimates (pp), for whoever cares about total population estimates from the Q4-2004 and Q4-2005 financial/business quarters. Which is higher? You brought up "all of the Canadas", not me. And I thought I made it plain that I don't care about any of it, and why and why no one should. But I'll be happy to do it again for those who missed it the first time around.
Or stick to the Albertas. "It" gained 25,063, the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island gained 25,018 in irrelevant total population "% change" (at the CON source, not around me or any reality) that has nothing to do with business/financial quarters. A whole 45 more people, in a total fluke (the usual out of Albertans; hyping total flukes, which shows up quite clearly just with Q4-2004 pop. growth estimate comparisons above) over one quarter? Oh no! Alberta is catching up with us. Give it a break, hick.
And next time, do the math yourself and post a table like the above yourself -- not a link to StatsCON -- which does nothing but con, because it's confederate and has to pretend that something is out there other than the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island regions.
You're up against 24,502,696 people in "Ontario+Quebec" (Windsor-Quebec City corridor) + "British Columbia" (Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island), with a puny 3,306,359 population estimate (all Jan 1, 2006) in the Albertas. You're going to have to do a lot better than gaining a whole extra 45 people and are going to have to keep it up for more than one quarter/three months.
Consider your ridiculous hype rebuked yet again. And with the crap you provided, which I still haven't debunked/un-twisted in full.
How many business quarters would it take for the Albertas to end up with the population (let alone real economies/markets, if you know the difference) of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island; (ON+QC+BC)? Do you need a Torontonian, Montrealer or Vancouverite to to do the basic math for you, hick? It's nothing personal, it's a public post, so I will do the math -- and based on a total FLUKE of one quarter.
Debunking Hick-Spew -- for Ontario and other non-hicks: on top of the above
25,018 is what "Ontario and Quebec and British Columbia" (Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island -- but we have to wait for 2006 Census numbers around municipalities to come out, sometime in 2008 or 2009, to prove it yet again and even moreso) picked up in total population (estimates for now and about as bad as they get; the 2006 Census has already started, and we're already finished because it can be done on-line this Census as soon as you get yer forms, which "you"/whomever won't if "you" didn't file a confederate tax return last year; we could not possibly be further away from the last, 2001 Census, in guesses) in the fourth business quarter (Q4) of 2005 compared to the Q4-2004 (Dec. 31) population estimate.
And you're the one who stuck "big bad" Alberta up against the rest of the Canadas and screw you around that propaganda cheating: Ontario, Quebec and BC didn't lose any population. Are we supposed to "add negatives" (typical mad cow dung infested "brains") from the Atlantic Canadas and rest of the prairies and such to our population growth? No. Because it's mad cow shite to do so, so "big bad Alberta" is up against Ontario, Quebec and BC. Got it? Good.
25,063 is what Alberta gained (estimated as usual, and usually over-estimated by StatsCON around everything BUT the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, which they also try to pretend doesn't even exist) from the fourth quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2005.
So if, for some bizarre reason that nothing predicts or shows in the history of the ONE YEAR of Jan 1, 2004 to Jan 1, 2005, or Oct 1, 2004 to Oct 1, 2005 ... how many business quarters (calendar or fiscal or lunar years) are in a year again? 6? 4.1? You think January is in the fourth quarter? Let's say 4 business quarters are in a calendar year, just for fun.
25,018 * 4 = 100,072
25,063 * 4 = 100,252
Confused about the above? Anyone? Look at the SUMMARY section of the "Population of the Canadas, July 1, 2006" chart above, which is right from the source (do check the numbers and math; my spreadsheet app may have been wrong, even though I checked it all about five times) in the "(ON+QC+BC) Totals" row and you'll see the Oct 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005 (Jan 1, 2006 same difference) population growth is 25,018.
StatsCON is comparing the fourth quarter (Q4), 2004 population growth estimates (Oct 1, 2004 to Dec 31, 2004) to the Q4-2005 population growth estimates (Oct 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005); the last two columns on the chart above, which is in worthless percentages at the source, as usual.
There are 4 quarters in a year, so that's multiplied by 4 resulting in an annual growth rate (based on one quarter) of 100,072 people -- for ON+QC+BC.
25,063 is the Oct 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005 (Jan 1, 2006, same difference), multiplied by 4 quarters for a total fluke of what is not going to be its annual growth rate and is not its annual 2005 growth rate, but even with the total fluke, if it could continue on forever, Alberta's population growth for Q4-2005 multiplied by 4 (quarters; a year) is 100,252.
That's a difference of (100,252 - 100,072) a whole 180 people a year on the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island ... or "Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia" if you prefer to live in delusions, more people per year in "Alberta" -- based on a total fluke around "total population", in a StatsCON estimate, for "Alberta" compared to the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island -- I mean "Ontario, Quebec and BC."
Further debunking of hick-spew
Alberta is short, according to the source and table above derived from it, January 1, 2006 (24,502,696 (ON+QC+BC) - 3,306,359 (AB)) 22,096,337 people compared to "Ontario, Quebec and BC". And if the worthless fluke Q4 comparison continued, the Albertas would be gaining an extra 180 people on "Ontario, Quebec and BC" per year.
So. To figure out how many years it would take for the Albertas to end up with the population of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island (I mean "Ontario + Quebec + BC"), the amount of population the Albertas are gaining every year (180 more people, based on the Q4-2005 fluke) has to be divided by the population the Albertas is short of compared to "Ontario, Quebec and BC":
22,096,337 / 180 = 122,757.427777777778 or 122,757.4 years before "big bad Alberta" would catch "Ontario, Quebec and BC" in population -- even with the fluke of the Oct 1, 2006 to Jan 1, 2006 numbers you're trying to claim MEANS something.
See you in 123 THOUSAND YEARS or so. Hick. And now you know why no one cares, or should care about Alberta rantings and ravings, propaganda hype, mad cow dung. And should know yourself, though it's not a pm and is nothing personal because I have no clue who I am publishing to -- the Ontario forum and whomever happens to stumble across it to dump the usual hick-spew into the Alberta "holy puddle" of pig urine it belongs in.
And do you notice any other (typical) StatsCON flaws in the above; even with the fixes I made getting rid of worthless percentages that mean nothing? Tell everyone. Why should I have to do all of the work based on the stupidity of a typical Albertan hick-spew post; let alone in this forum?
Aside from the fact that "provinces" don't exist in reality (only in not long for this world medieval legislation), what does a business/financial quarter have to do with TOTAL population growth? It has nothing to do with business/finance, it has nothing to do with labor markets, employment, unemployment or anything else around BUSINESS/finance, which is what business/financial quarters tend to represent.
The only proper summary out of that worthless piece of shite from StatsCON is January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006, or October 2005 to October 2006 -- for at least ONE YEAR around total population in these ridiculous mess of "a federation", with rather wildly different populations in things called "provinces" that do not exist other than due to medieval confederate legislation and insults to the words (political) "systems" and "structures" -- everywhere.
A whole three MONTHS and take a look at the population TOTALS in the SUMMARY to see why we don't give a rat's arse about whatever delusions out of the Albertas. Then take a look at the GDPs posted previously in this thread, and the last 50 years of Alberta still being a largely deserted rural/prairie (agricultural) "provinces" and its pathetic economy based on nothing that any of "y'all" did or can do for yourselves -- which is why we have to keep sending skilled human capital way up and out there to Nowhere from real economies. But that's another book or ten that everyone knows other than ignorant "Albertans" and other hicks, already know about.
Now how about a real table (such as can be done with BBCode; but it's also portable) instead of the usual StatsCON dung and their worthless HTML tables that use the "numerical sort order" (it's numerical data) of east to west for the "provinces" then west to east for the territories:
Population of the Canadas, January 1, 2006[1]
And January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006 real population growth
"REAL Population Growth" is simply the Jan 1, 2005 pop estimates subtracted from the Jan 1, 2006 pop estimates. Or 2006 minus 2005, for one measly year of results, when 5- and 10-year histories are required to establish any real historical trends, which are used for soothsaying/future trends by those who soothsay/project/guess.
* "% Pop" is the percentage of the January 1, 2006 population the jurisdiction or summarized combined jurisdictions have of the January 1, 2006 TOTAL population -- which is where percentages actually show something that means plenty in context with the rest.
pr Updated postcensal estimates.
pp Preliminary postcensal estimates.
1. These estimates are based on the 2001 census counts adjusted for net undercoverage
Derived from: Statistics Canada - The Daily, March 28, 2006
Last modified (by source): 2006-03-30
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-05-03
_____
More debunking/un-twisting
From January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006 did Alberta gain more in population than "Ontario" (south) alone did? From Jan 1, 2005 to Jan 1, 2006, the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island gained 240,902 in population (which is irrelevant alone, which is why GDPs were added to my initial posts; or Alberta gained an extra 80,058 unemployed, homeless persons from the welfare bum "provinces" of the rest of the Canadas).
During the same period of time, one year, Alberta gained a whole 80,058 people. And that is un-twisting propaganda from the confederates -- and hick-spew that picks it up and tries to run with it. I run it right into a rock then stick it between a hard place with reality. And if you (whomever, I'm looking at a video display) have a problem with that, then take it up with the source. Tell Statistics Canada that they're all wrong, after trying to use one document to claim that they're all right. Hypocrisy, from one sentence to the next, let alone from one post to the next, is also a hallmark of hick-spew.
Learn how to identify hick-spew, particularly from Albertans, and deal with it -- and the Canadas will be a much better place.
It "twists" nothing at all and a 5-year population growth summary is still worthless without at least real gross "domestic" (truly "provincial"/territorial) product and real GDP growth attached, and maybe even the number of full-time jobs created and per NAICS industry type -- at bare minimum to mean anything.
But good luck getting even that much out of StatsCON. Anyone can go to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Web site and U.S. Census Bureau Web site and get XLS (or CSV) files to import into spreadsheet and/or database apps, in about a minute, with any data they want, for nothing. Best of luck with any of it around the utterly hopeless "Statistical reporting agency for 'Canada'".
If even the above were simple for anyone to get, it would expose "Canada", glaringly, for what it is -- the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (which also needs breakdowns into at least 12 regions if the Atlantic Canadas are going to even get COMBINED stats for all four alleged "provinces"; and the Manitobas and Saskatchewans, or the Albertas or anything else) - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island and "the rest."
It shows up in "the rest" in the population summary above "The rest - (ON+QC+BC)" and it's even worse around the most basic economic measure that exists; GDP totals per "province" and territory. Break the GDPs down by 5-digit NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) industries and get a proper statistical structure, dumping the ridiculous "provinces" that don't exist in reality on any level but propaganda and then we just need total federal receipts (for the same period of time), total federal disbursements (subtract the latter from the former to find out what is paying all the bills) and then the garbage above might actually mean something -- and nothing good for "the rest." Including the Albertas.
Go to it with public information from StatsCON or anything else; and best of luck. It's already posted above, right in this thread due to your "go to it" around some bizarre "Alberta vs. ONTARIO" comparison when the Albertas don't compare to Toronto. Nothing in the Canadas does, other than the usual: the rest of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor; around what is being discussed: not just populations but glimpses of MARKETS with GDPs attached.
And for a real comparison of some sort, relevant to total population growth; you might want to go back to the 2001 Census numbers already posted above, for everything in "the Canadas" (July 1, so you'll have to wait for the July 1, 2006 population estimates, or use the July 1, 2005 estimates to get equal yearly estimates) at least over some period of time showing some real trends -- not one fluke over three months or even one year. And save percentages for percentage of the total population of the Canadas, where it actually means something. 300,000% of 0 is still zero.
With this:
Windsor-Québec City Corridor, 2001
Ontario Section
10,706,513 93% of Ontario's population
Québec Section
6,327,354 87% of Quebec's population
Total Population
17,033,867 57% of Canada's population
Source: Statistics Canada 2001 Census
_____
And this:
Population and percentage of population by jurisdiction/regions, 1996 and 2001 Censuses
Population Growth is simply the 1996 Pop subtracted from the 2001 Pop.
Source: Statistics Canada (English) (all sources) - many pages from the results of the 2001 Census of Canada, including the 1996 Census counts and such from: Tables - Canada Population and Dwelling Counts (by about any way you wish to view them) is probably the best overall ... typical StatsCan't mess. Useful if you can get past their insane interfaces without going insane. If you can figure out how, just to create the above -- let me know.
Not included above, see also:
A Profile of the Canadian Population: Where We Live (Index)
See also:
Growth concentrated in four large urban areas
_____
Who can possibly think that "percent change" between 17,033,867 people in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor -- and anything else in the Canadas, means anything?
Do you think that a 10 "percent change" of the 2,696,826 people, the population the Albertas had in the 2001 Census amounts to a 5 "percent change" of the 17,033,867 people the Windsor-Quebec City corridor had in the 2001 Census?
Either you don't, so are oblivious, or you do, so are INENTIONALLLY CONNING/MISLEADING (which is also against the rules of every forum on this site) -- with the usual hick-spew and in the Ontario forum no less.
Hick-spew from the ROC is all over every forum on the Web, in the "Canadian newz media" let alone local hick-media and is even all over this site, with lots of forums to choose from -- so please keep it out of this one and stick to the topic of this one forum. If we wanted to hear, see or read hick-spew, we wouldn't have to go far. CPAC is full of nothing but hick-spew now due to the Hick Party being voted in by Hick Canada, which is now locked out of every major city in the Canadas that matters -- because they're oblivious hicks who play to oblivious hick audiences, not because they claim to be "conservative." Y'all don't even know what a real Conservative with a capitalist C even is, or why and why not, when it's right on front of your faces with your pathetic populations, economies, which are called "markets" when combined.
We look around from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (some parts) and see nothing out there, and hundreds of billions of our revenues gone for less than nothing. And aside from Newfoundland, you've all had 100 years to fix that up but are too stupid, socialist and/or olivious to do anything about anything other than bitch and scream for more and more handouts from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor; the real Canada, the original Canada.
And then "y'all" pull your outright lies out as "excuses" as to why you're so hopeless, despite one of the largest transfers of money on the planet that has taken place and continues to take place of of "Ontario" (south) to the rest of the Canadas, including the Albertas paying 40% too little/getting 40% too much of its own revenues back, but bitching out of oblivious hick-spew regardless (and of course; ignorance with CONVICTION is still ignorance) of the rather stark realities that are right in your faces in this thread -- but that "y'all" can't be bothered reading because it might put a dent in your obliviousness for a change; which is kinda the purpose of the "information era" y'all are (as usual) totally missing out on, have no clue about, have missed the boat on -- other than the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island.
There are plenty of hicks in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and there are plenty of hicks in the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island region. But not to the extents in "the rest" with the Atlantic Canadas next in line, actually using their brains, losing their retards/rejects to the Albertas (prairies in general; outside the real cities) where they belong, which is cutting costs for the Atlantic Canadas and adding them to the Albertas.
The Atlantic Canadas don't get the kind of international tourism (or migration) that Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver get but below the political/marketing level, they know what they have to do to get with this century and are doing it. And they do get quite a different kind of tourist than the prairie-hick provinces do; not just from the U.S. a' lookin' to strap a moose to the hood a' the pick-up (best of luck getting it past U.S. Customs) but worldly and rich northeast Americans and Canadians and Europeans and Scandanavians and even "foreigners". [All-important different shapes of eyes, eyebrows, hair color, skin pigmentation, clothing and such.]
Consider yourself back between the same rock and hard place you were already in. Stick your "percent change" of no population to speak of where your head apparently is.
And what's the "third world" to you? Rumors, hearsay, stupidity; the usual out of you hicks? We didn't just get pinched for smuggling people from the real third world into the U.S. And you can stick your racism up your clueless hick arse. "Boy."
Go spout the rest in the Alberta or any other forum. No one here cares. Beating your chests one second over how "rich" you are (ya, and it really shows with those shanty towns and the poverty and homelessness in the Albertas), then go a' runnin' off to the confederates for handouts over COWS of all things, the next -- in the 21st century and due to totally self-created problems of your own making, due to your own stupidity as usual.
Had enough or would you care for some more? There is lots more to come if y'all are up to it. Care to insult "third world" Toronto again, hick? Please do it in another forum and hope that I don't notice.
Hank C said:
It may have something to do with the fact that this is the Ontario forum, for discussion of whatever a "local" Ontario issue is; and that you hicks are all over the place spewing propaganda (hick-spew) based on ignorance -- so I only bother with this forum and don't like it when invaders who have myriad other forums to publish their hick-spew in, totally ignore the rules of the site and do so in the only forum I can (barely) manage to tolerate on the entire Web anymore around "Canadian" economics<->socio-economics/demographics, so politics; even though the Canadian Content forums are the best I've ever seen around (lack of oblivious hicks, no same-sex marriage hick-spew was anywhere in sight in the Canadian Politics forum when I showed up and started reading, no Iraq war had broken out in the Canadian Politics forum, only one oblivious, brainwashed Albertan was posting; and getting buried alive with reality, which I was more than happy to help out with) but that's all changed.
It'll take a team of experts to try to tackle the "Canadian" Politics forum these days and all the other analysts and others I know with more than "a clue" have much better things to do than post the simple facts only to end up with oblivious hick-spew in their faces: including myself, which is why I don't bother with the "Canadian" (hick) Politics anymore either; the only other forum I ever had any interest in on this site, which was quite a shocker when I first started reading it; in a good way. Now (the last 6 months or so) the level of ignorance is downright embarrassing and impossible to tackle without teams of experts who don't care whether y'all are totally oblivious about absolutely everything or not. But good luck finding anyone who will bother. What this site needs now is a members-only Canadian Facts & Stats forum that no oblivious hicks can get into to post hick-spew: just facts from the sources of all sources with the only "debate" taking place being via PMs and only in the case of allegedly incorrect facts.
Then those who know something won't have to repeat themselves over and over and over again, to no avail. They can simply reference posts in the Canadian Facts & Stats forum and take it or leave it, hicks. There is no "debating" reality. The sky is not purple with green polka dots and I will not "debate" that with any stupid moron or any other reality/fact. Take it up with the sources if you/whomever happen to "disagree" with reality; which is quite common, is a way of life for most in the Canadas.
Read the rules, read the terms of service. There is no "Ontario vs. Alberta", it's more like Alberta vs. the Atlantic Canadas (just take a look at the tables below around population; merge the Atlantic Canadas into one province and it's next in line after the Ontarios, Quebecs, BCs, Albertas, and far closer to the Albertas than the Albertas is to the BCs.
And the Atlantic Canadas are more promising regarding growing real economies as opposed to stupidly exporting raw/semi-processed volatile commodities (and all of the new full-time jobs, spin-offs, expanded markets, expanded revenue bases) that go along with the stupidity of the Albertas exporting everything from cows on the hoof to American meat processing plants (and RE-IMPORTING no less, throwing even those value-added jobs away and then bitching about it in the 21st century, in 2003 when the U.S. and 35 or so other countries slapped a "live cattle import ban" and beef ban for starters, on all of the Canadas over one mad cow in the Albertas and then your "conservatives" ran to the confederates for handouts to get "federal" meat processing plants built as though Alberta had never heard of private investment, had never thought about how stupid it was to be exporting live on the hoof, which is bad enough alone, but also RE-IMPORTING, which is called selling low and buying high on top of handing basic full-time value-added jobs and spin-offs away for no apparent reason; which is a good way to go bankrupt, which is exactly what the Albertas would be without our oil industries; and only since the 1970's has it actually paid a bit more into "the federation" than it's taken out of it) to synthetic crude from bitumen and what's left of its natural gas (not much); raw/semi-processed -- off to real economies/markets.
And it's been over 50 years since we established the oil industry in the Albertas, which is still heavily subsidized -- yet Libya is doing better, with almost double the population of the Albertas in what is otherwise a desert country with nothing but oil revenues for income and it's never received a cent from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island in handouts from the "Canadian" confederates.
Every Libyan who wants one (isn't a nomad) is given a house or "apartment" (what we call condos, but with no maintenance fees either) -- because that government is truly RICH. And it shows. There is zero homelessness in Libya, there is zero poverty. And it's a desert country with nothing but crude that it's not stupid enough to export raw. It takes the refinery and petrochemical plant jobs, gets all the value it can get out of its desert economy -- before exporting.
"Alberta" (as if; which "Alberta"?) doesn't even do that around its COWS and poverty and homelessness is RIFE, while the Klein Dynasty sits on almost the entire GDP of the Canadas (over $30 BILLION) in "conservative surplus" (say what? Real Conservatives call "surplus" over-taxation) stuffed into various slush funds doing nothing -- just as Alberta governments have done ever since the foreign oil companies showed up, ripped you off because you're stupid hicks (look it up and its synonyms; "provincial unsophisticated simpleton bumpkinly rustic rural bucolic yokel rube yahoo hayseed chawbacons" is a bit tedious when hicks covers all of it; and hillbillies and rednecks too, but those are American terms that have never been used here by anyone but Canadian prairie hicks), due to lots of experience around something called capitalism, which requires fools, suckers and hicks, who basically live in the third world, and supply the real economies of whatever economic union(s) with the raw/semi-processed commodities they need to create their real economies; along with imports from other third world countries.
If/when Alberta is ever truly moderately clever let alone "rich"; we'll know about it in Toronto before "y'all" will.
But you (Albertans in general, with many years of unpleasant experience; and now it's impossible to escape even in the Ontario forum on the best Web forums around) can't even stick to your own thread in the Ontario forum. What's with the Alberta-only spew you posted right after "Alberta vs. Ontario"? Where was the comparison to anything in the Ontarios?
Who gives a crap? Go spew it where someone stupid/small enough will care; like in the Alberta forum, for example. Not here. You went off-topic of your first post/thread, in this forum (with an oh-so-clever thread topic that you then totally ignored), in your second post about nothing that has anything to do with the Ontarios and nothing that anyone here gives a rat's arse about.
"Big" development in puny little Edmonton amounts to nothing here. You're hicks, you have no clue what real development is, let alone in this century. Take it up with Mississauga or the like; which is in the Ontarios, connected to the west end of the municipality of Toronto. Take it up with York Region or any real development in some comparison; which is what the thread you created is allegedly about -- not just spewing Alberta propaganda off in the Ontario forum.
Hank C said:
What a surprise; again, and from a Stampede Towner no less. Read the sources of the facts. They are not "mine" and you hicks use that ridiculous "argument" every time you get shoved between a rock and a hard place with no room to wiggle, no way to spew propaganda because the facts, with clearly marked sources, not "my facts" -- don't allow any wiggle room. And aside from trying to make it personal (send a pm, personal message; it's what they're for) the next "argument" is that your brain is too small to keep more than one thought in it, to get an overall context (my posts are "too long"), with verifiable facts from THE sources or all (public) facts, as far as public facts go; which is all we can publish in a forum like this.
And you're the one who didn't read anything; as usual, Stampede Town. And you're in the wrong forum and didn't even stick the the subject of your own thread. You stated no source, which is the usual around hicks, just spewing lies based on total obliviousness/propaganda that you all parrot almost to the exact word, because you have no brains of your own. But I'm doing what? Read the name and purpose of this forum again and check my location.
Hank C said:
Can I figure what out? You're a bit out of your league, let alone in the wrong forum. Or did you mean October 1st to December 31st and not notice that StatsCON states "October to December" (not January) in the link you finally provided?
S-Ranger said:
And what's with "approx" this and "approx" that? Can't you do basic arithmetic? And what's next? Would you like to compare pointless land masses of the alleged "provinces" while you're at it? And perhaps get your own provincial police force for a change given that you're so "rich". Losers.
"Approx" doesn't cut it around alleged "facts". You post something like I do, below, and above in other posts, and the sources of the information so that I/anyone can check on it all. You do the work if you intend to state ANYTHING in this forum or I will fry your ass. Rather, you'll fry your own due to what my tagline/"signature" states.
And this is what you stated:
Hank C said:
Remember that last part. It's actually 25,063 for the Albertas and 19,734 for the rest of the Canadas combined -- but only after "adding" the negative numbers of OUT-MIGRATION from, well take a look at the tables below.
And what is the release date of your (now) source? StatsCON had the alleged January 1, 2006 population estimates right on its home page at the time; but as per usual the link was screwed up and it was still pointing to the exact table I posted (minus the "percentage" crap, converted into real numbers, 3rd quarter and with that crap also debunked), when I posted it.
Your original "statements" were made on March 31st, 2006. You backed it up with nothing (typical of ignorant hicks, particularly Albertans, in my on-line experiences, along with thinking that the "news media" amounts to anything credible when there is no truth in the news and there is no news in the truth) and Statistics Canada did not have the fourth "quarter" (as if it matters around TOTAL population in these mess of "a federation" let alone percentages, over a whole three months) data on their site on that date. Nor had they sent anything out in subscriptions of The Daily other than a screw-up that ruined all of the third quarter data; particularly around Alberta.
For the first time in, I don't know how many years now because they screwed the 3rd quarter document totally, when they claimed to release the January 1, 2006 population estimates (with the exact same 3rd quarter numbers; it was the The Daily, December 21, 2005 with one of the 3rd quarter tables but the rest destroyed claiming to be the January 1, 2006 information) actually gained lots of international migrants in the 3rd quarter; which is quite unusual and is the only way you hicks, look it up, are ever going to become worldly, figure out which century this is in the real world around real economies, lose the sexism, racism, homophobia and discrimination y'all claim not to have and so forth. The original Q3 document also had G-7 population and growth comparisons and plenty more -- until StatsCan't screwed it all up with a link to nothing, claiming "the latest" (January 1, 2006) population estimates, but pointing to a now-mangled 3rd quarter Daily document -- missing most of the good stuff it had when it was originally released.
Too bad for you for not posting a source. It's no one's job but yours to do your research and back it up before you spew. Next time, try this and do it yourself:
Population of the Canadas, January 1, 2006[1]
And Fourth quarter (October 1 to December 31) 2005 population grow compared to fourth quarter 2004 population growth
Code:
____________________________________________________________________________________
October to
December REAL
October 1, January 1, October 1, January 1, Pop Change
JURISDICTION 2004pr 2005pr 2005pp 2006pp 2004 2005
____________________________________________________________________________________
Ontario 12,454,171 12,462,445 12,589,823 12,599,364 8,274 9,541
Québec 7,566,136 7,573,726 7,616,645 7,623,870 7,590 7,225
British Columbia 4,215,695 4,225,623 4,271,210 4,279,462 9,928 8,252
Alberta 3,215,869 3,226,301 3,281,296 3,306,359 10,432 25,063
Manitoba 1,173,358 1,174,959 1,178,109 1,178,348 1,601 239
Saskatchewan 995,351 994,687 992,995 990,930 -664 -2,065
Nova Scotia 938,821 938,339 938,116 936,988 -482 -1,128
New Brunswick 752,313 752,266 751,726 751,111 -47 -615
Newfoundland & Labrador 517,112 517,339 515,591 514,409 227 -1,182
Prince Edward Island 137,762 137,771 138,278 138,157 9 -121
Northwest Territories 42,973 43,015 42,965 42,526 42 -439
Yukon Territory 30,791 30,862 31,235 31,150 71 -85
Nunavut 29,647 29,710 30,133 30,245 63 112
____________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 32,069,999 32,107,043 32,378,122 32,422,919 37,044 44,797
____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
October to
SUMMARY December REAL
October 1, January 1, October 1, January 1, Pop Change
2004pr 2005pr 2005pp 2006pp 2004 2005
____________________________________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 20,020,307 20,036,171 20,206,468 20,223,234 15,864 16,766
(ON+QC+BC) Total 24,236,002 24,261,794 24,477,678 24,502,696 25,792 25,018
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 12,049,692 12,070,872 12,171,654 12,199,685 21,180 28,031
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 7,833,997 7,845,249 7,900,444 7,920,223 11,252 19,779
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 5,384,578 5,395,947 5,452,400 5,475,637 11,369 23,237
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB 2,168,709 2,169,646 2,171,104 2,169,278 937 -1,826
Atlantic Total 2,346,008 2,345,715 2,343,711 2,340,665 -293 -3,046
Territory Total 103,411 103,587 104,333 103,921 176 -412
____________________________________________________________________________________pp Preliminary postcensal estimates.
1. These estimates are based on the 2001 census counts adjusted for net undercoverage
Derived from: Statistics Canada - The Daily, March 28, 2006
Last modified (by source): 2006-03-30
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-05-03
_____
I did it for you, this time, because it was already done. But it was not done when you posted anything. Only the (um, for general public publication, for free) Q3 tables were -- and you didn't state ANY source let alone a credible source, and it's no one's job to do your research to claim whatever you think you're going to claim (particularly in this forum) but YOURS.
And if you could read, you would know that and would have learned far more than just one business/financial quarter's worth of information in the process and would have answered the question posed, along with the evidence.
Why is Alberta receiving about 40% more of its revenues per capita in transfers this fiscal year (and last) back from the confederates than Ontario is?
Don't bitch to me about "twisting" anything, let alone "avoiding" your ALLEGATIONS around Q4-2005, which is not all I posted because one quarter means nothing around total populations and total populations also mean nothing alone; as my posts also illustrated had you bothered to read anything.
What about Africa's population? Plenty of countries beat all of the Canadas in 2005 to 2006 population growth. And 25% of the population growth (pulled from thin air; probably more) are going to die in the next year. Then they'll out-populate us again with ten or more times as many births (who won't live a month let alone a year; but that's another stat) and "migration" as refugees from one war zone to the next, and wherever they hear foreign aid is at to get some drinking water and such; but population really matters; and around a business/financial quarter in "a country" that is not oriented to itself but is oriented to the U.S., region by region right across the real board, where 80% (or so) of whatever "Canadians" are huddle along the borders of the U.S., within 100 miles or kilometers of it (on land; we have a bit of water separating us from our main trading partners in the south Ontarios, but the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway works to ship raw, pre-processed and even many finished goods around, with over 40% of all trade, in commerce, between the U.S. and "Canada" using a 4-lane vintage 1938 suspension bridge over the Detroit River -- but thank god we have that massive bridge to PEI to, um, ship their potatoes out with?).
Population means nothing on its own, which is why I included the most basic economic indicator that exists, real GDP, with population stats that do mean something (but are not "the latest"; not around anything free). 2004 GDPs and populations are reasonably reliable around the Canadas, U.S., for free. You won't find any 2005 GDPs (GSPs, same difference, proper label and 50 sub-national jurisdictions with less than 10 times more the population of the Canadas, with its ridiculous "provinces") for the U.S. at the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Web site yet, let alone StatsCan't/StatsCON, so who cares about anything you posted, or rather didn't post?
I just posted it above and only mildly debunked/un-twisted.
Aside from the population TOTALS in the Ontarios (93% of the population of the Ontarios and 87% of the Quebecs were in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor in the 2001 Census) -- see the SUMMARY where "Prairies (AB+MB+SK)" are summarized? Does it look like the prairies gained more in population than the Windsor-Quebec City corridor ("Ontario" and "Quebec") and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island ("British Columbia") in the "ON+QC+BC" row, to you?
ON+QC+BC (Windsor-Quebec City corridor and the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island) gained 25,018, the prairies (AB+SK+MB) gained 23,237 -- in total population and in estimates (pp), for whoever cares about total population estimates from the Q4-2004 and Q4-2005 financial/business quarters. Which is higher? You brought up "all of the Canadas", not me. And I thought I made it plain that I don't care about any of it, and why and why no one should. But I'll be happy to do it again for those who missed it the first time around.
Or stick to the Albertas. "It" gained 25,063, the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island gained 25,018 in irrelevant total population "% change" (at the CON source, not around me or any reality) that has nothing to do with business/financial quarters. A whole 45 more people, in a total fluke (the usual out of Albertans; hyping total flukes, which shows up quite clearly just with Q4-2004 pop. growth estimate comparisons above) over one quarter? Oh no! Alberta is catching up with us. Give it a break, hick.
And next time, do the math yourself and post a table like the above yourself -- not a link to StatsCON -- which does nothing but con, because it's confederate and has to pretend that something is out there other than the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island regions.
You're up against 24,502,696 people in "Ontario+Quebec" (Windsor-Quebec City corridor) + "British Columbia" (Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island), with a puny 3,306,359 population estimate (all Jan 1, 2006) in the Albertas. You're going to have to do a lot better than gaining a whole extra 45 people and are going to have to keep it up for more than one quarter/three months.
Consider your ridiculous hype rebuked yet again. And with the crap you provided, which I still haven't debunked/un-twisted in full.
How many business quarters would it take for the Albertas to end up with the population (let alone real economies/markets, if you know the difference) of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island; (ON+QC+BC)? Do you need a Torontonian, Montrealer or Vancouverite to to do the basic math for you, hick? It's nothing personal, it's a public post, so I will do the math -- and based on a total FLUKE of one quarter.
Debunking Hick-Spew -- for Ontario and other non-hicks: on top of the above
25,018 is what "Ontario and Quebec and British Columbia" (Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island -- but we have to wait for 2006 Census numbers around municipalities to come out, sometime in 2008 or 2009, to prove it yet again and even moreso) picked up in total population (estimates for now and about as bad as they get; the 2006 Census has already started, and we're already finished because it can be done on-line this Census as soon as you get yer forms, which "you"/whomever won't if "you" didn't file a confederate tax return last year; we could not possibly be further away from the last, 2001 Census, in guesses) in the fourth business quarter (Q4) of 2005 compared to the Q4-2004 (Dec. 31) population estimate.
And you're the one who stuck "big bad" Alberta up against the rest of the Canadas and screw you around that propaganda cheating: Ontario, Quebec and BC didn't lose any population. Are we supposed to "add negatives" (typical mad cow dung infested "brains") from the Atlantic Canadas and rest of the prairies and such to our population growth? No. Because it's mad cow shite to do so, so "big bad Alberta" is up against Ontario, Quebec and BC. Got it? Good.
25,063 is what Alberta gained (estimated as usual, and usually over-estimated by StatsCON around everything BUT the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, which they also try to pretend doesn't even exist) from the fourth quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2005.
So if, for some bizarre reason that nothing predicts or shows in the history of the ONE YEAR of Jan 1, 2004 to Jan 1, 2005, or Oct 1, 2004 to Oct 1, 2005 ... how many business quarters (calendar or fiscal or lunar years) are in a year again? 6? 4.1? You think January is in the fourth quarter? Let's say 4 business quarters are in a calendar year, just for fun.
25,018 * 4 = 100,072
25,063 * 4 = 100,252
Confused about the above? Anyone? Look at the SUMMARY section of the "Population of the Canadas, July 1, 2006" chart above, which is right from the source (do check the numbers and math; my spreadsheet app may have been wrong, even though I checked it all about five times) in the "(ON+QC+BC) Totals" row and you'll see the Oct 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005 (Jan 1, 2006 same difference) population growth is 25,018.
StatsCON is comparing the fourth quarter (Q4), 2004 population growth estimates (Oct 1, 2004 to Dec 31, 2004) to the Q4-2005 population growth estimates (Oct 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005); the last two columns on the chart above, which is in worthless percentages at the source, as usual.
There are 4 quarters in a year, so that's multiplied by 4 resulting in an annual growth rate (based on one quarter) of 100,072 people -- for ON+QC+BC.
25,063 is the Oct 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005 (Jan 1, 2006, same difference), multiplied by 4 quarters for a total fluke of what is not going to be its annual growth rate and is not its annual 2005 growth rate, but even with the total fluke, if it could continue on forever, Alberta's population growth for Q4-2005 multiplied by 4 (quarters; a year) is 100,252.
That's a difference of (100,252 - 100,072) a whole 180 people a year on the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island ... or "Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia" if you prefer to live in delusions, more people per year in "Alberta" -- based on a total fluke around "total population", in a StatsCON estimate, for "Alberta" compared to the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island -- I mean "Ontario, Quebec and BC."
Further debunking of hick-spew
Alberta is short, according to the source and table above derived from it, January 1, 2006 (24,502,696 (ON+QC+BC) - 3,306,359 (AB)) 22,096,337 people compared to "Ontario, Quebec and BC". And if the worthless fluke Q4 comparison continued, the Albertas would be gaining an extra 180 people on "Ontario, Quebec and BC" per year.
So. To figure out how many years it would take for the Albertas to end up with the population of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island (I mean "Ontario + Quebec + BC"), the amount of population the Albertas are gaining every year (180 more people, based on the Q4-2005 fluke) has to be divided by the population the Albertas is short of compared to "Ontario, Quebec and BC":
22,096,337 / 180 = 122,757.427777777778 or 122,757.4 years before "big bad Alberta" would catch "Ontario, Quebec and BC" in population -- even with the fluke of the Oct 1, 2006 to Jan 1, 2006 numbers you're trying to claim MEANS something.
See you in 123 THOUSAND YEARS or so. Hick. And now you know why no one cares, or should care about Alberta rantings and ravings, propaganda hype, mad cow dung. And should know yourself, though it's not a pm and is nothing personal because I have no clue who I am publishing to -- the Ontario forum and whomever happens to stumble across it to dump the usual hick-spew into the Alberta "holy puddle" of pig urine it belongs in.
And do you notice any other (typical) StatsCON flaws in the above; even with the fixes I made getting rid of worthless percentages that mean nothing? Tell everyone. Why should I have to do all of the work based on the stupidity of a typical Albertan hick-spew post; let alone in this forum?
Aside from the fact that "provinces" don't exist in reality (only in not long for this world medieval legislation), what does a business/financial quarter have to do with TOTAL population growth? It has nothing to do with business/finance, it has nothing to do with labor markets, employment, unemployment or anything else around BUSINESS/finance, which is what business/financial quarters tend to represent.
The only proper summary out of that worthless piece of shite from StatsCON is January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006, or October 2005 to October 2006 -- for at least ONE YEAR around total population in these ridiculous mess of "a federation", with rather wildly different populations in things called "provinces" that do not exist other than due to medieval confederate legislation and insults to the words (political) "systems" and "structures" -- everywhere.
A whole three MONTHS and take a look at the population TOTALS in the SUMMARY to see why we don't give a rat's arse about whatever delusions out of the Albertas. Then take a look at the GDPs posted previously in this thread, and the last 50 years of Alberta still being a largely deserted rural/prairie (agricultural) "provinces" and its pathetic economy based on nothing that any of "y'all" did or can do for yourselves -- which is why we have to keep sending skilled human capital way up and out there to Nowhere from real economies. But that's another book or ten that everyone knows other than ignorant "Albertans" and other hicks, already know about.
Now how about a real table (such as can be done with BBCode; but it's also portable) instead of the usual StatsCON dung and their worthless HTML tables that use the "numerical sort order" (it's numerical data) of east to west for the "provinces" then west to east for the territories:
Population of the Canadas, January 1, 2006[1]
And January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006 real population growth
Code:
________________________________________________________________
REAL
January 1, January 1, Population %
JURISDICTION 2005pr 2006pp Growth Pop*
________________________________________________________________
Ontario 12,462,445 12,599,364 136,919 38.86
Québec 7,573,726 7,623,870 50,144 23.51
British Columbia 4,225,623 4,279,462 53,839 13.20
Alberta 3,226,301 3,306,359 80,058 10.20
Manitoba 1,174,959 1,178,348 3,389 3.63
Saskatchewan 994,687 990,930 -3,757 3.06
Nova Scotia 938,339 936,988 -1,351 2.89
New Brunswick 752,266 751,111 -1,155 2.32
Newfoundland & Labrador 517,339 514,409 -2,930 1.59
Prince Edward Island 137,771 138,157 386 0.43
Northwest Territories 43,015 42,526 -489 0.13
Yukon Territory 30,862 31,150 288 0.10
Nunavut 29,710 30,245 535 0.09
________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 32,107,043 32,422,919 315,876 100.00
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
REAL
SUMMARY January 1, January 1, Population %
2005pr 2006pp Growth Pop*
________________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 20,036,171 20,223,234 187,063 62.37
(ON+QC+BC) Total 24,261,794 24,502,696 240,902 75.57
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 12,070,872 12,199,685 128,813 37.63
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 7,845,249 7,920,223 74,974 24.43
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 5,395,947 5,475,637 79,690 16.89
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB 2,169,646 2,169,278 -368 6.69
Atlantic Total 2,345,715 2,340,665 -5,050 7.22
Territory Total 103,587 103,921 334 0.32
________________________________________________________________* "% Pop" is the percentage of the January 1, 2006 population the jurisdiction or summarized combined jurisdictions have of the January 1, 2006 TOTAL population -- which is where percentages actually show something that means plenty in context with the rest.
pr Updated postcensal estimates.
pp Preliminary postcensal estimates.
1. These estimates are based on the 2001 census counts adjusted for net undercoverage
Derived from: Statistics Canada - The Daily, March 28, 2006
Last modified (by source): 2006-03-30
Last updated/checked (by me): 2006-05-03
_____
More debunking/un-twisting
From January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006 did Alberta gain more in population than "Ontario" (south) alone did? From Jan 1, 2005 to Jan 1, 2006, the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island gained 240,902 in population (which is irrelevant alone, which is why GDPs were added to my initial posts; or Alberta gained an extra 80,058 unemployed, homeless persons from the welfare bum "provinces" of the rest of the Canadas).
During the same period of time, one year, Alberta gained a whole 80,058 people. And that is un-twisting propaganda from the confederates -- and hick-spew that picks it up and tries to run with it. I run it right into a rock then stick it between a hard place with reality. And if you (whomever, I'm looking at a video display) have a problem with that, then take it up with the source. Tell Statistics Canada that they're all wrong, after trying to use one document to claim that they're all right. Hypocrisy, from one sentence to the next, let alone from one post to the next, is also a hallmark of hick-spew.
Learn how to identify hick-spew, particularly from Albertans, and deal with it -- and the Canadas will be a much better place.
It "twists" nothing at all and a 5-year population growth summary is still worthless without at least real gross "domestic" (truly "provincial"/territorial) product and real GDP growth attached, and maybe even the number of full-time jobs created and per NAICS industry type -- at bare minimum to mean anything.
But good luck getting even that much out of StatsCON. Anyone can go to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Web site and U.S. Census Bureau Web site and get XLS (or CSV) files to import into spreadsheet and/or database apps, in about a minute, with any data they want, for nothing. Best of luck with any of it around the utterly hopeless "Statistical reporting agency for 'Canada'".
If even the above were simple for anyone to get, it would expose "Canada", glaringly, for what it is -- the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (which also needs breakdowns into at least 12 regions if the Atlantic Canadas are going to even get COMBINED stats for all four alleged "provinces"; and the Manitobas and Saskatchewans, or the Albertas or anything else) - Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island and "the rest."
It shows up in "the rest" in the population summary above "The rest - (ON+QC+BC)" and it's even worse around the most basic economic measure that exists; GDP totals per "province" and territory. Break the GDPs down by 5-digit NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) industries and get a proper statistical structure, dumping the ridiculous "provinces" that don't exist in reality on any level but propaganda and then we just need total federal receipts (for the same period of time), total federal disbursements (subtract the latter from the former to find out what is paying all the bills) and then the garbage above might actually mean something -- and nothing good for "the rest." Including the Albertas.
Go to it with public information from StatsCON or anything else; and best of luck. It's already posted above, right in this thread due to your "go to it" around some bizarre "Alberta vs. ONTARIO" comparison when the Albertas don't compare to Toronto. Nothing in the Canadas does, other than the usual: the rest of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor; around what is being discussed: not just populations but glimpses of MARKETS with GDPs attached.
And for a real comparison of some sort, relevant to total population growth; you might want to go back to the 2001 Census numbers already posted above, for everything in "the Canadas" (July 1, so you'll have to wait for the July 1, 2006 population estimates, or use the July 1, 2005 estimates to get equal yearly estimates) at least over some period of time showing some real trends -- not one fluke over three months or even one year. And save percentages for percentage of the total population of the Canadas, where it actually means something. 300,000% of 0 is still zero.
With this:
Windsor-Québec City Corridor, 2001
Ontario Section
10,706,513 93% of Ontario's population
Québec Section
6,327,354 87% of Quebec's population
Total Population
17,033,867 57% of Canada's population
Source: Statistics Canada 2001 Census
_____
And this:
Population and percentage of population by jurisdiction/regions, 1996 and 2001 Censuses
Code:
________________________________________________________________________
Population
JURISDICTION 2001 %Pop 1996 %Pop Growth
________________________________________________________________________
Ontario 11,410,046 38.02 10,753,573 37.28 656,473
Québec 7,237,479 24.12 7,138,795 24.75 98,684
British Columbia 3,907,738 13.02 3,724,500 12.91 183,238
Alberta 2,974,807 9.91 2,696,826 9.35 277,981
Manitoba 1,119,583 3.73 1,113,898 3.86 5,685
Saskatchewan 978,933 3.26 990,237 3.43 -11,304
Nova Scotia 908,007 3.03 909,282 3.15 -1,275
New Brunswick 729,498 2.43 738,133 2.56 -8,635
Newfoundland & Labrador 512,930 1.71 551,792 1.91 -38,862
Prince Edward Island 135,294 0.45 134,557 0.47 737
Northwest Territories 37,360 0.12 39,672 0.14 -2,312
Yukon Territory 28,674 0.10 30,766 0.11 -2,092
Nunavut Territory 26,745 0.09 24,730 0.09 2,015
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 30,007,094 100.00 28,846,761 100.00 1,160,333
________________________________________________________________________
Population
SUMMARY 2001 %Pop 1996 %Pop Growth
________________________________________________________________________
(ON+QC) Total 18,647,525 62.14 17,892,368 62.03 755,157
(ON+QC+BC) Total 22,555,263 75.17 21,616,868 74.94 938,395
Rest - (ON+QC) Total 11,359,569 37.86 10,954,393 37.97 405,176
Rest - (ON+QC+BC) Total 7,451,831 24.83 7,229,893 25.06 221,938
Prairie (AB+SK+MB) Total 5,073,323 16.91 4,800,961 16.64 272,362
(SK+MB) Total ^ to AB 2,098,516 6.99 2,104,135 7.29 -5,619
Atlantic Canadas Total 2,285,729 7.62 2,333,764 8.09 -48,035
Territories Total 95,168 0.33 92,779 0.31 -2,389
________________________________________________________________________Source: Statistics Canada (English) (all sources) - many pages from the results of the 2001 Census of Canada, including the 1996 Census counts and such from: Tables - Canada Population and Dwelling Counts (by about any way you wish to view them) is probably the best overall ... typical StatsCan't mess. Useful if you can get past their insane interfaces without going insane. If you can figure out how, just to create the above -- let me know.
Not included above, see also:
A Profile of the Canadian Population: Where We Live (Index)
See also:
Growth concentrated in four large urban areas
_____
Who can possibly think that "percent change" between 17,033,867 people in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor -- and anything else in the Canadas, means anything?
Do you think that a 10 "percent change" of the 2,696,826 people, the population the Albertas had in the 2001 Census amounts to a 5 "percent change" of the 17,033,867 people the Windsor-Quebec City corridor had in the 2001 Census?
Either you don't, so are oblivious, or you do, so are INENTIONALLLY CONNING/MISLEADING (which is also against the rules of every forum on this site) -- with the usual hick-spew and in the Ontario forum no less.
Hick-spew from the ROC is all over every forum on the Web, in the "Canadian newz media" let alone local hick-media and is even all over this site, with lots of forums to choose from -- so please keep it out of this one and stick to the topic of this one forum. If we wanted to hear, see or read hick-spew, we wouldn't have to go far. CPAC is full of nothing but hick-spew now due to the Hick Party being voted in by Hick Canada, which is now locked out of every major city in the Canadas that matters -- because they're oblivious hicks who play to oblivious hick audiences, not because they claim to be "conservative." Y'all don't even know what a real Conservative with a capitalist C even is, or why and why not, when it's right on front of your faces with your pathetic populations, economies, which are called "markets" when combined.
We look around from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (some parts) and see nothing out there, and hundreds of billions of our revenues gone for less than nothing. And aside from Newfoundland, you've all had 100 years to fix that up but are too stupid, socialist and/or olivious to do anything about anything other than bitch and scream for more and more handouts from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor; the real Canada, the original Canada.
And then "y'all" pull your outright lies out as "excuses" as to why you're so hopeless, despite one of the largest transfers of money on the planet that has taken place and continues to take place of of "Ontario" (south) to the rest of the Canadas, including the Albertas paying 40% too little/getting 40% too much of its own revenues back, but bitching out of oblivious hick-spew regardless (and of course; ignorance with CONVICTION is still ignorance) of the rather stark realities that are right in your faces in this thread -- but that "y'all" can't be bothered reading because it might put a dent in your obliviousness for a change; which is kinda the purpose of the "information era" y'all are (as usual) totally missing out on, have no clue about, have missed the boat on -- other than the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island.
There are plenty of hicks in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and there are plenty of hicks in the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island region. But not to the extents in "the rest" with the Atlantic Canadas next in line, actually using their brains, losing their retards/rejects to the Albertas (prairies in general; outside the real cities) where they belong, which is cutting costs for the Atlantic Canadas and adding them to the Albertas.
The Atlantic Canadas don't get the kind of international tourism (or migration) that Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver get but below the political/marketing level, they know what they have to do to get with this century and are doing it. And they do get quite a different kind of tourist than the prairie-hick provinces do; not just from the U.S. a' lookin' to strap a moose to the hood a' the pick-up (best of luck getting it past U.S. Customs) but worldly and rich northeast Americans and Canadians and Europeans and Scandanavians and even "foreigners". [All-important different shapes of eyes, eyebrows, hair color, skin pigmentation, clothing and such.]
Consider yourself back between the same rock and hard place you were already in. Stick your "percent change" of no population to speak of where your head apparently is.
And what's the "third world" to you? Rumors, hearsay, stupidity; the usual out of you hicks? We didn't just get pinched for smuggling people from the real third world into the U.S. And you can stick your racism up your clueless hick arse. "Boy."
Go spout the rest in the Alberta or any other forum. No one here cares. Beating your chests one second over how "rich" you are (ya, and it really shows with those shanty towns and the poverty and homelessness in the Albertas), then go a' runnin' off to the confederates for handouts over COWS of all things, the next -- in the 21st century and due to totally self-created problems of your own making, due to your own stupidity as usual.
Had enough or would you care for some more? There is lots more to come if y'all are up to it. Care to insult "third world" Toronto again, hick? Please do it in another forum and hope that I don't notice.
The New Ontario: Corridor Of Power
IN THE 1800s aboriginals called it the Wolf ’s Track, and you’d have been hard-pressed to find anyone on it. Today the Edmonton-Calgary corridor is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world and boasts a population of nearly 2.5 million souls, more than Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined. Every day 50,000 vehicles use the four-lane divided thoroughfare known as Highway 2. Once flanked by vast prairie expanses that on a clear day still offer scenic glimpses of the Rocky Mountains, the corridor now sports jarring colonies of constant residential development and classic nowhere architecture.
Dubbed the “Western Tiger” by the TD Bank Financial Group, the corridor connects Edmonton, a sprawling metropolis serving the oil sands, to Calgary, a sprawling metropolis answering the continent’s insatiable appetite for natural gas. In between lie more growing concerns such as Red Deer, an agriculture and oilpatch centre dominated by evangelical churches that serves as a trading area for nearly two million people. A land of new subdivisions, sleek SUVs and cellphone-armed engineers and dealmakers, the region’s commercial heart — try $105 billion in related investments — furiously outpaces southern Ontario’s. Its standard of living is actually closer to that of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the wealthiest nation on earth.
It has also developed growing pains. Manure from factory farms around Red Deer threatens local groundwater as well as the sanity of down-winders. Subdivisions are sprawling so quickly over the prairie that oil and gas drillers collide daily with municipal planners and housing developers. So many new cottages have been planned for Sylvan Lake, a poor man’s Muskoka, that the water body won’t be able to handle its projected flotilla of 400 boats. The oilpatch now plans to drill more than 50,000 coal bed methane wells on prime corridor farmland; the region could theoretically end up supporting 12 times that number. In Calgary, concentric rings of monster-sized homes continue to creep toward the foothills so determinedly that the scenic drive to Banff may soon be obliterated. A recent proposal to drill sour-gas wells on the edge of the city immediately placed 250,000 citizens in an “emergency planning zone,” a controversial designation usually found around nuclear power plants.
According to Calgary’s smiling Mayor Dave Bronconnier, whom everyone calls Bronco, “there is no such thing as urban sprawl in Calgary.” The numbers, however, show a city with a vastly expanding waistline. Since 1970 the population has more than doubled. A road network of 2,800 kilometres has become a clogged maze of 12,000. In terms of square kilometres, Calgary now has the same size footprint as New York — but with only one-tenth of the people. “Calgary is a centrifugal force spinning out,” says Bev Sandalack, a local urban designer. In this unrestrained spin, farmland and mountain vistas are disappearing. “It’s unsustainable and unethical” to Sandalack, but in this place, with no immediate natural constraints — such as a great lake — to force greater population density, the end of suburbia is nowhere in sight.
IN THE 1800s aboriginals called it the Wolf ’s Track, and you’d have been hard-pressed to find anyone on it. Today the Edmonton-Calgary corridor is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world and boasts a population of nearly 2.5 million souls, more than Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined. Every day 50,000 vehicles use the four-lane divided thoroughfare known as Highway 2. Once flanked by vast prairie expanses that on a clear day still offer scenic glimpses of the Rocky Mountains, the corridor now sports jarring colonies of constant residential development and classic nowhere architecture.
Dubbed the “Western Tiger” by the TD Bank Financial Group, the corridor connects Edmonton, a sprawling metropolis serving the oil sands, to Calgary, a sprawling metropolis answering the continent’s insatiable appetite for natural gas. In between lie more growing concerns such as Red Deer, an agriculture and oilpatch centre dominated by evangelical churches that serves as a trading area for nearly two million people. A land of new subdivisions, sleek SUVs and cellphone-armed engineers and dealmakers, the region’s commercial heart — try $105 billion in related investments — furiously outpaces southern Ontario’s. Its standard of living is actually closer to that of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the wealthiest nation on earth.
It has also developed growing pains. Manure from factory farms around Red Deer threatens local groundwater as well as the sanity of down-winders. Subdivisions are sprawling so quickly over the prairie that oil and gas drillers collide daily with municipal planners and housing developers. So many new cottages have been planned for Sylvan Lake, a poor man’s Muskoka, that the water body won’t be able to handle its projected flotilla of 400 boats. The oilpatch now plans to drill more than 50,000 coal bed methane wells on prime corridor farmland; the region could theoretically end up supporting 12 times that number. In Calgary, concentric rings of monster-sized homes continue to creep toward the foothills so determinedly that the scenic drive to Banff may soon be obliterated. A recent proposal to drill sour-gas wells on the edge of the city immediately placed 250,000 citizens in an “emergency planning zone,” a controversial designation usually found around nuclear power plants.
According to Calgary’s smiling Mayor Dave Bronconnier, whom everyone calls Bronco, “there is no such thing as urban sprawl in Calgary.” The numbers, however, show a city with a vastly expanding waistline. Since 1970 the population has more than doubled. A road network of 2,800 kilometres has become a clogged maze of 12,000. In terms of square kilometres, Calgary now has the same size footprint as New York — but with only one-tenth of the people. “Calgary is a centrifugal force spinning out,” says Bev Sandalack, a local urban designer. In this unrestrained spin, farmland and mountain vistas are disappearing. “It’s unsustainable and unethical” to Sandalack, but in this place, with no immediate natural constraints — such as a great lake — to force greater population density, the end of suburbia is nowhere in sight.