The Next Canadian Government

[Good2Golf]

The storage and collection of water is an impact on the rural areas. Drainages often cover vast areas, encompassing where they live and what rights they have or not. It is often the "rural folk" that operate and maintain those facilities and transmission lines.
The impact of Oil and Gas extraction and transportation is also there, not only land impacts, water usage rights, road usage and air quality.

But is your position that the current ratio/balance (or lack thereof) of political representation, keeping them from benefitting from citizenship, as Canadian in an urban area would?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

But is your position that the current ratio/balance (or lack thereof) of political representation, keeping them from benefitting from citizenship, as Canadian in an urban area would?

The urbanites will stifle and trample the rural Canadian in a heartbeat and not even be aware of it. They will jump onto some bandwagon because it makes them feel good with little concept of what is going on outside of the cities. So yes the smaller minority needs some protections.

 

[Good2Golf]

The urbanites will stifle and trample the rural Canadian in a heartbeat and not even be aware of it. They will jump onto some bandwagon because it makes them feel good with little concept of what is going on outside of the cities. So yes the smaller minority needs some protections.

Or else all the hydro power will stop flowing?

What is the facts-based case for giving rural citizens a proportionately more powerful vote? What % multiplier should a rural voter have over an urban voter?

 

[markppcli]

My point is , that the cities would be incapable of generating wealth without the rural areas supplying all of these resources. Yes rural areas need the cities as well. But most Canadian city dwellers are horribly ignorant of the needs and issues of rural Canada. Most of these cities are always teetering on the brink of serious issues if those things fail as Calgary just found out.

My argument wasn’t against the importance of rural areas - I was asking you to provide data to support your claim of 80 percent GDP. You haven’t, you don’t have any supporting data. You attacked my source with no information, and have continued to provide nothing but your opinion and feelings. I like to deal with facts when we have these conversations.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The urbanites will stifle and trample the rural Canadian in a heartbeat and not even be aware of it. They will jump onto some bandwagon because it makes them feel good with little concept of what is going on outside of the cities. So yes the smaller minority needs some protections.

Okay, I'll go now . . .

 

[YZT580]

Or else all the hydro power will stop flowing?

What is the facts-based case for giving rural citizens a proportionately more powerful vote? What % multiplier should a rural voter have over an urban voter?

enough so that urbanites cannot control land usage.

 

[Good2Golf]

enough so that urbanites cannot control land usage.

What’s that #?

 

[YZT580]

What’s that #?

define enough and you have your answer. All I know is that when urbanites want your land, they take it or find a means to control its usage. Highway construction, power line installation, windmills and their infrastructure, housing - it doesn't matter the issue, the results are the same. Yes they do pay the owners for the violations but it is often urbanites who have bought the land who then parcel it out as the dollars dictate. If it wasn't for the green belt, most of the Niagara Region would be subdivision instead of growing soft fruits. Likewise out Pickering way.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My argument wasn’t against the importance of rural areas - I was asking you to provide data to support your claim of 80 percent GDP. You haven’t, you don’t have any supporting data. You attacked my source with no information, and have continued to provide nothing but your opinion and feelings. I like to deal with facts when we have these conversations.

How do they calculate GDP? If the head office is in Vancouver and Calgary, and they report 2 billion in activity, is that being credited to the urban areas or to where is that actual value being sourced?

Sorry if I get bee in my bonnet, I spent 20 years reviewing infrastructure projects in BC and the Yukon. The total ignorance of what the rural Canada gives to the urban side really pisses me off.

 

[Good2Golf]

define enough and you have your answer. All I know is that when urbanites want your land, they take it or find a means to control its usage. Highway construction, power line installation, windmills and their infrastructure, housing - it doesn't matter the issue, the results are the same. Yes they do pay the owners for the violations but it is often urbanites who have bought the land who then parcel it out as the dollars dictate. If it wasn't for the green belt, most of the Niagara Region would be subdivision instead of growing soft fruits. Likewise out Pickering way.

Not my job to define ‘enough.’

That’s your and Colin’s job.

You’re the ones saying it’s a problem and implying that representational multipliers for rural riding are required to protect the rural lifestyle which is the key supporter of Canada’s urban population.

Sorry if I get bee in my bonnet, I spent 20 years reviewing infrastructure projects in BC and the Yukon. The total ignorance of what the rural Canada gives to the urban side really pisses me off.

So if rural populations had more political ridings than urban centers, that would solve rural infrastructure problems?

I think you’re conflating geographical and governmental policy issues with political representation.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So that’s a no for a source to support your claim then?

Here’s a break down of the GDP by industry, take a look and where agriculture (despite its obvious importance) actually sits. Along with primary resource extraction.

Canada: GDP by industry 2024 | Statista

This statistic shows the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Canada in February 2024, distinguished by major industry.

www.statista.com

And if you want a second source here you go Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by industry, annual average

If you use those numbers 18% of the population is credited directly with 30% of the GDP via resources. So by that equation, rural citizens are twice as important as their urban counterpart. Also you can take Real estate, Health care, professional/science and technical, retail, transportation and credit approx 18% to the rural areas just using population as a rough and messy guide. So we would now be closing in on roughly 48% by 18% of the population.
Resources also account for 58% Canada's total merchandise exports. Which has a significant value in keeping Canada economically viable.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not my job to define ‘enough.’

That’s your and Colin’s job.

You’re the ones saying it’s a problem and implying that representational multipliers for rural riding is required to protect the rural lifestyle which is the key supporter of Canada’s urban population.



So if rural populations had more political ridings than urban centers, that would solve rural infrastructure problems?

I think you’re conflating geographical and governmental policy issues with political representation.

Political decisions made to appease urban voters have major ramifications for the rural areas, whether it's parks, FN land agreements, electrical generation needs. Regulations on ICE vehicles, etc.

I will add that here in BC, the last Premier we had that understood the value of BC rural areas, resources and infrastructure needs was W.A.C. Bennett. The rest have been shadows of that man.

 

[suffolkowner]

How do they calculate GDP? If the head office is in Vancouver and Calgary, and they report 2 billion in activity, is that being credited to the urban areas or to where is that actual value being sourced?

Sorry if I get bee in my bonnet, I spent 20 years reviewing infrastructure projects in BC and the Yukon. The total ignorance of what the rural Canada gives to the urban side really pisses me off.

they must break it down from sourced activity? Right?

Take a concrete ready mix plant in toronto. The aggregate came from say Caledon and the cement from St.Mary's. The value of the parts should at least per attributed to where it came from. But the final product value to Toronto? Or final value subtract substituents?

Take the agriculture value, which is really low from a GDP standpoint but kinda important in the real world

 

[markppcli]

If you use those numbers 18% of the population is credited directly with 30% of the GDP via resources. So by that equation, rural citizens are twice as important as their urban counterpart. Also you can take Real estate, Health care, professional/science and technical, retail, transportation and credit approx 18% to the rural areas just using population as a rough and messy guide. So we would now be closing in on roughly 48% by 18% of the population.
Resources also account for 58% Canada's total merchandise exports. Which has a significant value in keeping Canada economically viable.

So essentially your argument is that your vote should be tied to the percentage of the GDP you produce ?

 

[Good2Golf]

So we would now be closing in on roughly 48% by 18% of the population.
Resources also account for 58% Canada's total merchandise exports. Which has a significant value in keeping Canada economicall

So seeing how you added 30% and 18% to get 48%, if we add on 58% for resources, then rural folks should be credited with 106% of Canada’s GDP and get a decently greater share of the vote?

 

[Remius]

define enough and you have your answer. All I know is that when urbanites want your land, they take it or find a means to control its usage. Highway construction, power line installation, windmills and their infrastructure, housing - it doesn't matter the issue, the results are the same. Yes they do pay the owners for the violations but it is often urbanites who have bought the land who then parcel it out as the dollars dictate. If it wasn't for the green belt, most of the Niagara Region would be subdivision instead of growing soft fruits. Likewise out Pickering way.

That isn’t necessarily an urban vs rural issue though. That’s more like centralized government vs everyone. I can assure you that if an urban area wants your urban land they will do the same.

 

[GR66]

And are the rural residents buying all those resources among themselves? To earn that resource revenue you need customers that need those resources...i.e. the urbanites. How much GDP would rural Canada generate if they were only selling what was required by their own small, low density population?

Again, as I said previously I'm perfectly fine with us having our somewhat disproportionate representation in favour of rural ridings and low population Provinces. I think our regional diversity demands it. I just think it's important to remember that there are TWO sides to a Supply-Demand relationship. You can't have one without the other.

 

[suffolkowner]

Got a link to a story on that one? I’m curious to find the case and how it played out.

I can believe it, I've had people complain about my cows mooing

 

[brihard]

I can believe it, I've had people complain about my cows mooing

Oh I 100% believe the complaint. I was curious if the farmers got run roughshod in court.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Please remember that until the early 20th century, this was Canada:

The evolution of Rupert's Land, the HBC's vast territories, into Alberta, Saskatchewan and the other 80% of Manitoba didn't happen until the early 20th century. By that time, also, Western Alienation was well established. This cartoon appeared in a Western Canadian journal in 1915: