Sad that there is no mention or depiction of Canada's own magazine of that era, ''Electron''. It was commonly found alongside the big U.S. electronics periodicals like those shown here. Electron was a mainstay right up to the mid-1970s when it suddenly transitioned to ''Audio Scene Canada'', laden with glossy ads and a tight focus upon HiFi music products but no longer catering to the hobbyist or general electronics fields. I cancelled my subscription.
For a close second here's a 1985 issue of the TPUG Magazine [1], from the Toronto PET Users Group. I attended a few meetings of the Niagara Commodore Users Group and spent all of my paper-route and fruit-picking income on arcade games and my C64 system.
I got a VIC-20 when I was about 12? Jim Butterfield loomed impossibly large over all things Commodore at that time. One of the first things I typed in on it was his TINYMON, a <1kbyte “monitor” (for some reason resident debuggers were frequently called monitors in early microcomputing) before I had any idea what it was.
I didn't realize he was Canadian - as a child I got so much mileage out of Machine Language for the Commodore 64[0]. I used to think of my program, get out sheets of graph paper and flip through a table of opcodes I wanted to use, get their decimal rep, and write out the list of numbers in a long column, then go to my computer and POKE them into place and watch a spite come to life, or the screen change colour. So much fun had with that book.
Debuggers were people pulling bugs out of walls of vacuum tubes. They monitored and literally debugged a computer. Monitor made more sense at first, they monitored for bugs.
The "monitor" term is not from early microcomputing but from early computing. I believe that "monitor" referring to a display monitor, and referring to a machine language debugger all have the same origin: they date back to directly monitoring the electrical signals from equipment to observe its workings. The use of "monitoring" in profiling (e.g. gprof and its gmon.out file, etc) is also the same.
Yes; mixing consoles have monitor buses. One way to use monitor speakers is to put them on the monitor bus output. Then any mixer channel that is bridged to the monitor bus (with a dedicated switch, like a push button toggle) is then monitored.
I didn't grow up in Canada, but I miss these days where the universe of knowledge about computer tech and hardware wasn't impossibly large. It was possible to meet with people in meatspace and have real discussions with them. It's possible now, but it doesn't have the same vibe.
Also the hardware and software are so complicated, that probably no single person on this earth can carry any 64-bit CPU into his brain -- unlike back in the 8-bit and 16-bit eras, good programmers NEED to do that. I think the year 2,000 was sort of the thresh line.
All of this was so very inaccessible from North Western Canada.
(mind, still is, but Internet makes vast gulfs of space seem so much smaller)
When I could get there, Heathkit (~1200km south) or Radio Shack (wow do I ever miss them carrying electronics!) were go-tos. These days, it's order online or ... nothing, really.
Heathkit had physical locations? I had only ever seen magazine ads for mail order kits in 73 & QSL etc. A Heathkit store would probably blow my mind. :)
When I was a kid, there was a physical store around Boundary Road in Vancouver BC area/Canada. (or it could have been another name of a store, carrying their products. I was 12 when I moved to the far north!)
I wonder if anyone remembers the long running computer club that met at the Forest Hill Collegiate on Eglinton Ave in Toronto?
And there was another one in the basement of the old Toronto School Board building (where the new TDSB building now stands) beside Mel Lastman Sq. in Willowdale.
If Canada historically has a complex around his relative relationship to the USA, the same holds outside of central Canada, maybe with the exception of pockets that punch above their weight in terms of representation (like PEI). This is both funny (TSN: Toronto Sports Network) and concerning (current AB and SK alienation). Personally I'm first a Canadian and second a proud Albertan, and find it maddening that like the British Empire treated it colony Canada, so does the country treats us, and the resulting brinksmanship is scary & dangerous.
This is part of the issue; the GTA is solidly in the east (the centre of Canada is in Manitoba), but when someone says, "eastern Canada", one automatically thinks "Nova Scotia", but Toronto is a relatively short drive from New York City. That being said, I understand that in most cases, "central" is referring to population, industry, finance (not fashion - that's Montrėal).
Regarding the site, the exhibit's producer, Zbigniew Stachniak, wrote an excellent book [0] on the world's first truly portable computer: the MCM/70 - which ran APL (yay!).
Toronto is also a relatively short drive from Chicago. It's actually far more similar to Chicago than to coastal NYC.
It is really geographically "midwest" by US standards, not "east"
When I was in elementary school in Alberta in the 80s we called this "central Canada." And that's how I still think of it. But there's a growing trend especially in Alberta to call this "down east" which is in my mind a very political way of "othering" what is actually geographically quite central and economically and demographically as well.
Indeed - Chicago is considered "midwest" even though it is geographically in the eastern US. Maybe that's New York City-centrism from long ago?
Edmonton is as far west from the geographical centre of Canada as Toronto is east. I think it's a a bit of a stretch to call the GTA "geographically central". Economically and demographically, definitely.
The Weather Network, which really should consider geographic markers only, calls the GTA "central Canada". I think there would be an outcry if they started saying "eastern Canada".
In general when I think of "eastern" for both Canada and the United States I think "coastal." Yes, I guess Vermont is considered northeast and it's not on the Atlantic, but it's really not far from it.
And that's ... definitely not Ontario. Unless you count the lakes, which I mean, sure, why not?
Or another definition of eastern might be "along the Appalachian range". And again, def not Ontario.
Quebec is more up for debate.
Most of southern Ontario is also most definitely "midwest" from a "biome" POV. The first couple times I went to Sioux Falls, South Dakota for work I was thinking it would feel like the prairies, like Manitoba or Sask or something. Nope, it looked identical to southern Ontario. In fact it was the same latitude, even. The vegetation and terrain, I felt like I was in Essex County or something.
If I'd gotten in a car and driven home, it would have been directly east on the interstate and it would have been same same same corn and soy fields, maples, oaks, etc for 16 hours.
You need to think about just how long you'd be driving east from Toronto before you finally hit the Atlantic. (And not just the widening of the St Lawrence at Quebec City, but let's say... where the water is fully salty and tidal... which is apparently around Matane, directly north of New Brunswick).
Like, 20 hours of driving. And then to get to e.g. Halifax or Sydney NS, which aren't even our furthest east points, another what.. 15? 16? hours of driving. And then a ferry out to Newfoundland?
Toronto is really quite quite far west of the easternmost points in the country. Calling it "east" seems odd.
Especially when you consider when people were settling this country they were doing so by going up the St Lawrence and into the lakes. Or had taken the railway from Halifax, etc. They had traveled a long way before they got here. It wouldn't have felt "east" to them at all.
You're right. For the people settling this country, they were traveling west from Europe across the Atlantic, so the country is coded as to how far West you have to travel. Quebec would be "Middle Canada". Ontario should be Western Canada; Manitoba should be Westerner Canada; Saskatchewan should be West Westerner Canada; Alberta should be called Westerer Westerner Canada, and British Columbia should be Better-Come-From-The-Other-Side Canada.
> Indeed - Chicago is considered "midwest" even though it is geographically in the eastern US. Maybe that's New York City-centrism from long ago?
It's the mountains. East of Appalachian is the east (and south of the Mason-Dixon line in the east is the south), between Appalachian and Rockies is Midwest, the wet part of the rest is northwest, the dry part is southwest.
Ah, our geography. I live in Arnprior, about half an hour west of Ottawa (technically, my house is a couple of clicks from the Ottawa border, but we don't really start counting until the burbs).
Anyway. I live closer to James Bay than DC. Let that sink in a moment (and sink is what you will do if you attempt the drive).
It's true, I should have prefixed what I said about Ontario as with "southern Ontario"
Our province is huge, and east past about e.g. Peterborough it's a very different province. And north past e.g. Barrie. And then again past Thunder Bay, etc etc.
Southern Ontario is the north eastern tip of the midwest. Eastern Ontario is the western end of the northeast. Northern Ontario is... huge.
It wasn't. Those were bumper stickers in the 80s referencing the National Energy Program. Very in line with the "What does Petro-Canada stand for?" - Pierre Elliot Trudeau Rips Off Canada.
Point conceded, although I hasten to add Ralph's infamous "Eastern bums and creeps" quote to the mix.
Another Alberta bumper sticker from the early 1980s foreclosure era said something like: ''Please, God, let there be another oil boom and this time I won't blow all my money away!"
It's referring to the fact that Ontario and Quebec were Upper and Lower Canada, and as the country grew, things to the "West" and "East" were seen in that light, even though it doesn't make sense centuries later.
Sports leagues mirror those commmon conceptions. Toronto is always put in the East alignment of pro sports leagues. Apart from a rough patch for the CFL in the 1980s when the Winnipeg Blue Bombers were moved over to the East, they and the Jets have always been in the West.
The Leafs were in the West. LA beat them in the '93 conference finals after the infamous Gretzky high stick, they would have played the Canadiens in the finals that year. They lost in the '94 conference finals to the Canucks.
I forgot about that! They were in the Central Division of the Campbell Conference, which was renamed the Western Conference the next year, and didn't return to the Eastern until 1998-99.
My little grey cells don't seem to store Leafs info well. Oh, did you hear? Bill Barilko disappeared. He was on a fishing trip.
>like the British Empire treated it colony Canada, so does the country treats us
This persecution complex seems bizarre. The only entities exploiting Alberta are the oil companies who offshore billions of dollars in profits. Instead of growing their sovereign wealth fund the way Norway does, Albertans allowed themselves to be exploited.
Edit: I see now that when I wrote "created a fund like Norway" it was taken as implying Alberta didn't have a fund, when what I meant was "created one that is similar to Norway's fund". Edited for clarity.
Since the 70s, yes, and it's minuscule because the oil companies socialize the risks and privatize the profits, less some token royalties. Norway's was established in the 90s and is multiple orders of magnitude larger, because they don't allow big oil to fuck them over.
>The amount Alberta has sent in equalization payments would have allowed us to have a far larger wealth fund than Norway has.
You are being fed a narrative.
Equalization payments are taken from federal tax revenues. Every Canadian pays taxes according to the same graduated tax rate schedule, whether Albertan or not.
Alberta does not "pay into" equalization payments. Provinces do not "send money to other provinces". That's simply not how the program works.
Equally, you are being fed a narrative. Yes, yes, every Canadian pays into federal taxes that are then dispersed amongst provinces to give a relatively "equal" standard of living, hence the term equilization payments. But why does Alberta consistently send far more money than it receives? Just what is it that allows Albertans to pay so much more in taxes? And of course that doesn't even get into how the equalization formula is created and applied, what sorts of things are factored into a province's "fiscal capacity" and what things get factored out, and whether those parts of the formula could be slanted to benefit certain provinces more than others. Of course at this point you'd probably deflect and say that the current equalization formula was put in place by the Harper government because you think that I must support the conservatives and this is some sort of gotcha.
The bottom line is that since the big oil and gas discoveries of the 60s Alberta has sent roughly 300 billion more to the federal government than it has received in return. This is of course part of being a province in a country, instead of a country itself like Norway is. And of course there has been mismanagement of the Heritage Fund, so Alberta is not blameless here. But the oft repeated talking point that Alberta doesn't actually really contribute disproportionately to the country is completely false. Why doesn't Alberta have a wealth fund on par with Norway? Because that money has instead been used to help fund hospitals, roads, schools and more across the rest of the country. I think that's a pretty good investment and I'm not upset about that, but I am upset when people don't even see that and choose instead to recycle a bunch of trite talking points that are basically lying by omission.
>But why does Alberta consistently send far more money than it receives?
The Province of Alberta sends no money at all. What part of this is so hard to understand?
I live in BC, and we also are considered a "have" province, and we also do not send any money.
The money comes from the Federal Government. It was never provincial money to begin with. It's tax money that is paid directly to the federal government by Canadians, and businesses. It does not come "from Alberta" or "from BC".
>Just what is it that allows Albertans to pay so much more in taxes?
Every single Canadian is subject to the exact same Federal Tax schedule. If you and I were in the same income tax bracket, we'd pay the exact same rate.
If Albertans are "paying more in taxes" (doubtful), then that's Danielle's problem. But not a single cent of provincial tax revenue gets put into Equalization payments.
I'll try one last reply in the hopes that you're not just playing willfully ignorant here. Alberta doesn't send money but "Albertans" do. Sorry for not being insanely pedantic with my terminology. Critically the federal government then dispenses money to provinces, so even if we want to be clever about the source of money, when it comes back it goes to geographically bounded provincial coffers, not the pockets of citizens. When people say that "Alberta" sends money, they mean that Albertans pay money to the federal government and then federal government spends that money elsewhere. And those borders matter when that money is being spent. I send money to the federal government and the federal government does not spend money in the geographical area where it would impact me. I'm happy that a person in Manitoba gets a new hospital, but that doesn't actually improve my life directly. So when people say that Alberta sends money to other provinces, that's what they mean. That provinces are able to create things for their citizens that they would not be able to fund otherwise because they received money from other geographic locations. The net in-out transfer is the bottom line. The people of alberta send X billion dollars to the federal government every year and the federal government sends X-10 billion dollars back to the provincial government, because that 10 billion is going to other provinces. This isn't rocket science unless you're trying hard to misunderstand.
The point about Albertans paying more is that they have higher incomes, so they are subject to progressive taxation (same as everyone, you'd don't need to reply thinking you've made a clever point). A combination of oil and gas revenue and a relatively business positive environment have made it possible for Albertans to pay more in taxes because they earn more. This is a good thing, but the point of contention comes out of the fact that there is no incentive for other provinces to try and improve their "fiscal capacity" when they can instead backfill their lack of revenue on the backs of the provinces, like BC, that are net contributors. If other provinces were faced with the having to cut services, or figure out how to improve their economies, they might undertake the work of improving their economy. But instead they can defer the hard choices and let Alberta, and BC provide that revenue.
At the end of the day I do just fine as an Albertan. One day oil and gas will be less important worldwide and Alberta will have to adapt. Luckily our economy is already more diversified than say, BC, which relies on real estate for a bigger proportion of its GDP. Better hope that trading houses back and forth continues to be a productive way to structure an economy. And even more importantly, once oil and gas subsides and Alberta can no longer provide per capita incomes ~15-20% higher than the rest of Canada what does the equalization formula look like then? I think that a lot of provinces are going to suddenly find out that they were taking things for granted and the money tap just isn't there any more. We'll see what happens at that point I guess, I feel pretty confident that Alberta will be fine, and hopefully it will force the rest of Canada to make some painful choices that will be better for the country in the long-term. But its going to suck in the short-term.
>When people say that "Alberta" sends money, they mean that Albertans pay money to the federal government and then federal government spends that money elsewhere.
I don't actually think most people mean this when they say it.
But hey, sounds like we both are on the same page, and I'm glad we agree that Alberta as an entity doesn't pay equalization payments.
It sounds like you have a problem with federal spending, and you're far from alone in that regard.
> Of course at this point you'd probably deflect and say that the current equalization formula was put in place by the Harper government because you think that I must support the conservatives and this is some sort of gotcha.
>you'd don't need to reply thinking you've made a clever point
>Better hope that trading houses back and forth continues to be a productive way to structure an economy.
These little jabs you keep putting in aren't helping your case. They just make you seem like a jerk.
It's not. It's an incredibly common strawman used in discourse on this topic (obviously it's relatively new to HN). They know it's a bad faith argument but it's used over and over to paint Albertans as illiterate rednecks.
This stupid argument comes up all over X, Reddit, etc... to muddy the waters and refuse to actually engage with the topic of equalization and the current formula used to determine how federal transfers are calculated and allocated.
> Alberta does not "pay into" equalization payments. Provinces do not "send money to other provinces". That's simply not how the program works.
You're being pedantic.
Income from Alberta workers gets taxed and sent to other provinces or citizens living in other provinces via various federal programs. If we were a separate country, all that money would stay in Alberta.
Splitting hairs over the precise "how" doesn't change the fact it's money siphoned out of Alberta to other provinces.
>Income from Alberta workers gets taxed and sent to other provinces or citizens living in other provinces via various federal programs. If we were a separate country, all that money would stay in Alberta.
And you'd be incurring lots of new expenses like border controls, national security, etc. The last estimates I saw were that the total equalization payments attributable to Alberta were about a tenth of the cost of federal government services provided to Alberta.
That is to say Albertan taxpayers would be on the hook for an additional 25 billion dollars annually, or so.
>Splitting hairs over the precise "how" doesn't change the fact it's money siphoned out of Alberta to other provinces.
It's not pedantic, you're just factually incorrect. It's money that all Canadians already pay to the government (because it's money from federal income tax). There's no line item in the Alberta budget for "equalization payments".
If we deleted the entire Equalization Program tomorrow, we'd all still be paying the same taxes.
Since you don't seem to want to write in good faith here (or maybe you just don't understand, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), from the horse's mouth:
> If we were a separate country, all that money would stay in Alberta.
Yes. But you’d have to pay for your own border, army, customs, etc, etc.
By that logic every single province could separate, become a country, and then what? Is that supposed to be more cost efficient? Would the economy and free market between each province better? Would Alberta oil be worth the same price without having pipelines going through every province?
And then, why not have Calgary separate from Alberta. After all money from Calgary pays for roads in Edmonton and smaller towns. Surely we don’t want money leaving Calgary, if Calgary was independent, Calgary could keep its own money and not have their money “siphoned out”.
> Yes. But you’d have to pay for your own border, army, customs, etc, etc.
And? $45 billion of the Federal government's revenues come from Alberta. Another poster put the estimate of all these things at $26 billion. Sounds like an amazing deal.
> After all money from Calgary pays for roads in Edmonton and smaller towns
Municipal funds pay for roads, generally speaking. Provincial grants are only if it's proven that the road is essential infrastructure for the benefit of the whole province. The Federal government also gives grants from time to time.
alberta could also have had a wealth fund if it didn't have 0% sales tax, didn't do things like ralphbucks, etc.
norway and alberta take fundamentally different approaches to how they see the government and taxation. don't blame the federal government by saying individuals paying income tax somehow exempts the province from smart financial stewardship.
This is so true, but I've never heard it framed so clearly. Thank you!
As as Maritimer who moved to Toronto (but who came of age as an adult outside the Maritimes), your comment def wakes me up to the moral imperative of resisting the Toronto-centric framing in whatever ways I can
I dunno man. I grew up in Edmonton area and didn't much care about whatever in central Canada, and only had a vague sense of it despite having done a trip across Canada with the family when I was 8. Of course "western alienation" talk was all around from right wing sorts but my family paid no attention to it anyways.
Then I moved to Toronto in 1996 in the .com boom. I had spent plenty of time in Vancouver but living in Toronto was night and day in terms of vibrancy, culture, activity, economy. Toronto was a real living city and even Vancouver didn't compare. TLDR there's a reason why the country is in part Toronto centric. There's just a lot going on there. A lot of people, a lot of money, and a lot of culture. In the 90s especially it really was "downtown Canada." That would have been even more so in the period this article is talking about. It has nothing to do with Toronto people thinking they're superior, it has to do with the fact that this is the 3rd or 4th (depending how you count it) largest city in North America and nothing else in Canada even comes close.
I have lived both sides and most of my family is still in Alberta. The persecution complex out there is 100% bullshit. Nobody in reality is treating Alberta badly. It actually gets a remarkably good deal in confederation -- selling oil and gas to the rest of the country. Hydrocarbons aren't the centre of existence. Even after all these years of neglect and downgrading the manufacturing economies of central Canada are still a massive part of the GDP of the country, and the industrial policies that apply for them are not necessarily the same as for energy or forestry exports and that needs to be recognized.
Not to mention that this part of the world is where the bulk of the population still is. Yet I hear people in Alberta routinely talk about how they're somehow holding the whole country up. It's not factually correct. Not even close, unless you play wilful distortion of how equalization works.
Also, we are some of the the biggest customers of Alberta, Line 9 runs right behind my farm. 90% of the oil used here in Ontario is purchased via that line from Alberta, pumped from Edmonton. I also fail to see recognition of this from many pundits in Alberta. Even Harper was spreading misinformation about "Saudi oil tankers coming up the St Lawrence" -- that's just bullshit. The only part of our country that uses middle eastern imports is Atlantic Canada, for obvious reasons.
I don't see it as colonial at all. I think certain people got very aggressive when necessary moves were made around climate regulation. As a person who lived half their live in Alberta, and half their life here... I just think those people are wrong. a) It's wrong for Alberta to be so dependent on hydrocarbons and it needs to diversify b) Climate change is real and Alberta's exports play a significant role in that.
There is a lot of ... motivated ... disinformation spread by various actors in Alberta. People should be skeptical.
Respectfully, as an Albertan who still lives in Alberta, and who wants to remain a part of Canada I don't think that the persecution complex is 100% bullshit, and dismissals of it as such by eastern Canada only serve to reinforce it.
Re: equalization, of course the massive economy of Ontario makes a big part of GDP, but the point of Alberta's importance is that its economy allows it to make an outsized impact compared to its population. This surplus GDP/capita makes a huge difference in contributions to the equalization program wherein a province with 1/4 the population of Ontario can make the same size of contribution to the program. If you remove Alberta from the pool it becomes much much harder to retain the same size of payments to other provinces on the back of Ontario among others.
Second, Alberta has been one of the most under-represented province in the federal government, and that trend has gone on for decades. Lured by Alberta's economy people keep moving here and our ridings keep getting more and more people while we retain the same number of seats. This has been slowly changing as the government is basically forced to allocate more seats to Alberta and now between Ontario and BC, Alberta is no longer the most disadvantaged, but it still isn't a great situation.
Finally, there's all the one off issues that add up over time. As an example in the mid 2010s oil was in the gutters and Alberta was facing real economic issues. In 2015, there were roughly 35,000 job losses, and in 2016 there were another 25,000 direct job losses in the oil and gas sector. In 2018 when GM announced they were going to close their oshawa plant and put 3000 people out of work the federal government held an emergency midnight meeting to discuss how to help the workers. Those types of optics don't go unnoticed, that Alberta could lose roughly 100k jobs over 2014-2017 and that 3k jobs in Ontario gets a midnight cabinet meeting. Alberta still paid into equalization as a "have" province during that time, despite huge deficits as the provincial government tried to backstop revenue losses.
All of which is to say that the separation crowd is a bunch of bad actors and the flames of western alienation are certainly being fanned by people with ill intentions, but the core of that alienation stems from a real place and from real actions both current and historical, and glibly dismissing it is just not something I can agree with.
> Alberta has been one of the most under-represented province in the federal government
Each time Albertans (I'm a 4th generation of that group) complain about lack of representation within federalism, I remind them of the many golden opportunities that came and went with their popularly elected and re-elected federal parties in power for long stretches of time, with Harper even representing an Alberta riding, yet here we are with complaints that rehash the same old, same old stuff. Nothing about federalism is ever good enough for them even after all those years of pro-AB feds in power.
You're misunderstand my point here. Alberta, until the most recent seat redistribution, had the largest federal ridings by population. Now they're only the 3rd largest. That means that the average Albertan's vote was worth far less than the average Quebecer's, and faaaar less than the average maritimer's vote. It gives disproportionate power above and beyond just representation due to population. Its not about which party they vote or don't vote for, although we could dig into that too, as its not nearly as cut and dried at the reductionist take would make it seem.
If I remember correctly, the guidance from the Supreme Court on riding sizes is plus/minus 15% difference from average, with special cases of low population density over large geographic areas allowing as much as plus/minus 40% from average.
Electoral boundaries commissions in Canada have been obligated to take input from all who submit complaints about riding sizes. That's different than those commissions being able to actually achieve something asymptotic to ''parity'', of course, but the net effect is that all those golden opportunities in long term AB-friendly power were missed, as I say.
Confederation isn't a business transaction where everything needs to zero out every year.
Alberta's strong financial position today is thanks to all the work the rest of the country (private or public) put into building the infrastructure and economy - prospecting, railways, roads, military bases, etc.
Albertans may pay more taxes to the federal government than they get back in services but thanks to oil they probably have a positive trade balance with the rest of the country.
There is also zero guarantee that in 50 years Alberta won't be in a worse revenue situation than its neighbours and needing equalization. In fact it's likely.
Not just because there's the off chance that human civilization decides burning hydrocarbons is a really bad idea. But because Alberta is profoundly vulnerable to drought and water shortage due to deglaciation as a result of climate change.
I mean one of the opening paragraphs of that article is as follows:
"This is not because Alberta’s grievances are illegitimate. They are not. Albertans have real and long-standing concerns about energy policy, federal–provincial relations, and economic fairness within Confederation. Those concerns deserve to be debated openly and democratically by Canadians, among themselves, on their own terms. The danger is who has joined the debate and why."
This is my point. The separation stuff is clearly completely illegitimate, but the underlying causes of the grievances, several of which I've pointed out in my post above, are entirely real and legitimate, and just blowing it off as "meh, its just russian disinformation" etc, etc, is just a really lame way of not dealing with the issues at hand.
Appreciate the response and respectful tone, but almost none of this conversation makes sense to me because it's based on a strange assumption that Albertans should and must identify their own interests directly with the interests of the oil industry.
I do see that people often do that. I also think it's kind of a messed up perspective.
It's a destructive industry doing just as much harm (actually more, see forest fires, etc) to Albertans as it is doing to the rest of the world. Also as an Albertan who grew up watching his father cycle in and out of brutal unemployment on the cadence of erratic oil prices -- it's kind of a shitty patron to have, frankly.
There are other industries in Alberta. And new ones developing. But I just watched Smith's government sabotage renewables, so...
You're also seemingly making the giant assumption that people in Ontario somehow do the same around car manufacturers or something, or that people in "eastern Canada" have this monolithic view generally about either the west or whatever.
Ontario is actually often a giant sea of blue seats with red and orange in urban centres. It's actually a strong core of conservative support, historically.
But when conservatives take out of mainstream positions on cultural issues -- such as, I dunno, blockading the streets of the capital city, or effectively denying climate change -- they suffer at the ballot boxes even from people who often vote conservative.
I hated Harper, but he was smart enough to avoid this whenever possible. Can't say the same about the latest batch.
Anyways, I'm out there often. And my kid is going to do her BFA at the U of A (knock on wood, acceptances are this month), so I'll likely end up buying a house there long term and our family often talks about moving back there...
(BTW when Harper was in power we had the same blatant regionalism happening. I'd go out to visit family and find huge "stimulus" projects being built all over the province [e.g. Henday north construction, etc] while projects in Ontario failed to get funding ... unless the riding was a conservative one [see Vaughan subway extension, blatant vote buying]. The Canadian dollar sky rocketed to above the USD which severely harmed central Canadian manufacturing in ways it still hasn't recovered from. Should we have talked about central-Canada-alienation at that point?)
I acknowledge your perspective, fair enough, but it seems focused on the present. Western alienation goes far, far back, predating Confederation. The golden age of the Atlantic provinces goes back to a period hundreds of years ago, too. I'm just pointing out from a historical view that the cultural effect of so much power and influence being centred in Toronto and Montreal had, and continues to have, a large influence on Canadians, going back many, many generations. Some grind axes, others shrug, some stand up and shout "Excuse me, we've been here all along too, what about us?" I remain positive and upbeat that we'll sort it all out together.
I think what you're pointing at is potentially true but also that it's somewhat easily exploited by ideologically and money driven people for some rather ... what I would consider nefarious ends.
When I first moved here to Ontario I was blown away by how many people my own age didn't even know what/where Edmonton (a city of a million people, and the capital of the province) was, their only conception of Alberta was Calgary at most.
At the same time, I feel a strong sense of unease in the other direction when I'm out visiting family. There, again, there seems to be some confusion about what the country actually is.
I really love this country, having lived on two ends of it and driven across it many times. I've moved back and forth twice via Grayhound, 50+ hours slogging it across northern Ontario and the prairies stopping at every weird little town.
It's really something, what we've built here. I wish more people saw more of it.
Cold War RCAF brat here. Wherever Dad was transferred, that's where we went. It was a joy, but I've found over the years that folks sometimes get a bit cranky when I cannot pinpoint which part of Canada I'm from... for me, it has always been ''everywhere''.
I've lived my entire life just "down the road" from Toronto in Canada's 10th largest city. Always in the shadow of Toronto and the butt of many jokes.
Back when I worked in Toronto, people would always ask when I'd be moving there - because why would you want to live anywhere else?
I also remember, circa 2000, when the marketing people at the company I worked at were talking about advertising - they didn't see the point of spending on advertising outside of Toronto.
I grew up in Orillia, but my siblings and I all moved to your city. At the time it was just the closest to Toronto I could afford because all jobs are in Toronto. This city has grown on me, I wouldn't want to be any closer to Toronto.
>I've lived my entire life just "down the road" from Toronto in Canada's 10th largest city. Always in the shadow of Toronto and the butt of many jokes.
Can confirm. I live in a small farming hamlet with a population of about 42,000 one hour outside Toronto and Canada Revenue Agency considers me "rural Canada" for tax purposes.
I mean, it gets worse. When I first moved to Toronto and became born again and in love with that city, I was even more of a snob and wouldn't even deign to consider as civilized any area that was north of Bloor.
Ok I live just outside Hamilton now, I'm reformed.
If you're referring to the title, it conflates a relatively small geographic area having a large, concentrated population (York University, GTA, Southern Ontario) with a vastly larger but less densely concentrated national population (the rest of Canada), so it is easily seen as irritating to folks in the latter. Not hard to understand. Not a conspiracy.
Sad that there is no mention or depiction of Canada's own magazine of that era, ''Electron''. It was commonly found alongside the big U.S. electronics periodicals like those shown here. Electron was a mainstay right up to the mid-1970s when it suddenly transitioned to ''Audio Scene Canada'', laden with glossy ads and a tight focus upon HiFi music products but no longer catering to the hobbyist or general electronics fields. I cancelled my subscription.
For a close second here's a 1985 issue of the TPUG Magazine [1], from the Toronto PET Users Group. I attended a few meetings of the Niagara Commodore Users Group and spent all of my paper-route and fruit-picking income on arcade games and my C64 system.
[1] https://www.tpug.ca/tpug-media/tpugmag/TPUG_Issue_15_1985_Ju...
Wow. I remember the Toronto PET Users Group. That takes me back.
I got a VIC-20 when I was about 12? Jim Butterfield loomed impossibly large over all things Commodore at that time. One of the first things I typed in on it was his TINYMON, a <1kbyte “monitor” (for some reason resident debuggers were frequently called monitors in early microcomputing) before I had any idea what it was.
I didn't realize he was Canadian - as a child I got so much mileage out of Machine Language for the Commodore 64[0]. I used to think of my program, get out sheets of graph paper and flip through a table of opcodes I wanted to use, get their decimal rep, and write out the list of numbers in a long column, then go to my computer and POKE them into place and watch a spite come to life, or the screen change colour. So much fun had with that book.
[0] https://archive.org/details/Machine_Language_for_the_Commodo...
for some reason resident debuggers were frequently called monitors in early microcomputing
I think it's more like "for some reason, monitors are called debuggers in later microcomputing."
Debuggers were people pulling bugs out of walls of vacuum tubes. They monitored and literally debugged a computer. Monitor made more sense at first, they monitored for bugs.
At least, this is my understanding.
The "monitor" term is not from early microcomputing but from early computing. I believe that "monitor" referring to a display monitor, and referring to a machine language debugger all have the same origin: they date back to directly monitoring the electrical signals from equipment to observe its workings. The use of "monitoring" in profiling (e.g. gprof and its gmon.out file, etc) is also the same.
Similarly to 'monitor' speakers I would guess.
Something designed to keep track of a something-else that is running.
Yes; mixing consoles have monitor buses. One way to use monitor speakers is to put them on the monitor bus output. Then any mixer channel that is bridged to the monitor bus (with a dedicated switch, like a push button toggle) is then monitored.
I didn't grow up in Canada, but I miss these days where the universe of knowledge about computer tech and hardware wasn't impossibly large. It was possible to meet with people in meatspace and have real discussions with them. It's possible now, but it doesn't have the same vibe.
Also the hardware and software are so complicated, that probably no single person on this earth can carry any 64-bit CPU into his brain -- unlike back in the 8-bit and 16-bit eras, good programmers NEED to do that. I think the year 2,000 was sort of the thresh line.
I think it's a no true scotsman statement.
I believe one can be a good programmer without knowing where a memory register physically lives in a modern CPU.
That's for sure.
All of this was so very inaccessible from North Western Canada. (mind, still is, but Internet makes vast gulfs of space seem so much smaller)
When I could get there, Heathkit (~1200km south) or Radio Shack (wow do I ever miss them carrying electronics!) were go-tos. These days, it's order online or ... nothing, really.
Heathkit had physical locations? I had only ever seen magazine ads for mail order kits in 73 & QSL etc. A Heathkit store would probably blow my mind. :)
When I was a kid, there was a physical store around Boundary Road in Vancouver BC area/Canada. (or it could have been another name of a store, carrying their products. I was 12 when I moved to the far north!)
Toronto still has a Pet User Group (TPUG) which runs the World of Commodore conference every year. https://www.tpug.ca/
It might be the closest thing remaining; though unfortunately I was too young to participate in the hay-day of computer hobby clubs.
I wonder if anyone remembers the long running computer club that met at the Forest Hill Collegiate on Eglinton Ave in Toronto?
And there was another one in the basement of the old Toronto School Board building (where the new TDSB building now stands) beside Mel Lastman Sq. in Willowdale.
"We will examine this movement by looking at Toronto, the only city in Canada"
If Canada historically has a complex around his relative relationship to the USA, the same holds outside of central Canada, maybe with the exception of pockets that punch above their weight in terms of representation (like PEI). This is both funny (TSN: Toronto Sports Network) and concerning (current AB and SK alienation). Personally I'm first a Canadian and second a proud Albertan, and find it maddening that like the British Empire treated it colony Canada, so does the country treats us, and the resulting brinksmanship is scary & dangerous.
> central Canada
This is part of the issue; the GTA is solidly in the east (the centre of Canada is in Manitoba), but when someone says, "eastern Canada", one automatically thinks "Nova Scotia", but Toronto is a relatively short drive from New York City. That being said, I understand that in most cases, "central" is referring to population, industry, finance (not fashion - that's Montrėal).
Regarding the site, the exhibit's producer, Zbigniew Stachniak, wrote an excellent book [0] on the world's first truly portable computer: the MCM/70 - which ran APL (yay!).
[0] https://www.mqup.ca/Books/I/Inventing-the-PC2
Toronto is also a relatively short drive from Chicago. It's actually far more similar to Chicago than to coastal NYC.
It is really geographically "midwest" by US standards, not "east"
When I was in elementary school in Alberta in the 80s we called this "central Canada." And that's how I still think of it. But there's a growing trend especially in Alberta to call this "down east" which is in my mind a very political way of "othering" what is actually geographically quite central and economically and demographically as well.
Indeed - Chicago is considered "midwest" even though it is geographically in the eastern US. Maybe that's New York City-centrism from long ago?
Edmonton is as far west from the geographical centre of Canada as Toronto is east. I think it's a a bit of a stretch to call the GTA "geographically central". Economically and demographically, definitely.
The Weather Network, which really should consider geographic markers only, calls the GTA "central Canada". I think there would be an outcry if they started saying "eastern Canada".
In general when I think of "eastern" for both Canada and the United States I think "coastal." Yes, I guess Vermont is considered northeast and it's not on the Atlantic, but it's really not far from it.
And that's ... definitely not Ontario. Unless you count the lakes, which I mean, sure, why not?
Or another definition of eastern might be "along the Appalachian range". And again, def not Ontario.
Quebec is more up for debate.
Most of southern Ontario is also most definitely "midwest" from a "biome" POV. The first couple times I went to Sioux Falls, South Dakota for work I was thinking it would feel like the prairies, like Manitoba or Sask or something. Nope, it looked identical to southern Ontario. In fact it was the same latitude, even. The vegetation and terrain, I felt like I was in Essex County or something.
If I'd gotten in a car and driven home, it would have been directly east on the interstate and it would have been same same same corn and soy fields, maples, oaks, etc for 16 hours.
I think in terms of time zones. Toronto's time zone is Eastern Time, so it's in the East.
You need to think about just how long you'd be driving east from Toronto before you finally hit the Atlantic. (And not just the widening of the St Lawrence at Quebec City, but let's say... where the water is fully salty and tidal... which is apparently around Matane, directly north of New Brunswick).
Like, 20 hours of driving. And then to get to e.g. Halifax or Sydney NS, which aren't even our furthest east points, another what.. 15? 16? hours of driving. And then a ferry out to Newfoundland?
Toronto is really quite quite far west of the easternmost points in the country. Calling it "east" seems odd.
Especially when you consider when people were settling this country they were doing so by going up the St Lawrence and into the lakes. Or had taken the railway from Halifax, etc. They had traveled a long way before they got here. It wouldn't have felt "east" to them at all.
You're right. For the people settling this country, they were traveling west from Europe across the Atlantic, so the country is coded as to how far West you have to travel. Quebec would be "Middle Canada". Ontario should be Western Canada; Manitoba should be Westerner Canada; Saskatchewan should be West Westerner Canada; Alberta should be called Westerer Westerner Canada, and British Columbia should be Better-Come-From-The-Other-Side Canada.
Ok, I'm taking those names. My family in Alberta will love these
> Indeed - Chicago is considered "midwest" even though it is geographically in the eastern US. Maybe that's New York City-centrism from long ago?
It's the mountains. East of Appalachian is the east (and south of the Mason-Dixon line in the east is the south), between Appalachian and Rockies is Midwest, the wet part of the rest is northwest, the dry part is southwest.
Appalachian mountains.
Ah, our geography. I live in Arnprior, about half an hour west of Ottawa (technically, my house is a couple of clicks from the Ottawa border, but we don't really start counting until the burbs).
Anyway. I live closer to James Bay than DC. Let that sink in a moment (and sink is what you will do if you attempt the drive).
It's true, I should have prefixed what I said about Ontario as with "southern Ontario"
Our province is huge, and east past about e.g. Peterborough it's a very different province. And north past e.g. Barrie. And then again past Thunder Bay, etc etc.
Southern Ontario is the north eastern tip of the midwest. Eastern Ontario is the western end of the northeast. Northern Ontario is... huge.
We used to have bumper stickers that said "Let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark". Funny to mention this on an article referencing the PET.
That was former AB PM Ralph Klein's infamous quote.
It wasn't. Those were bumper stickers in the 80s referencing the National Energy Program. Very in line with the "What does Petro-Canada stand for?" - Pierre Elliot Trudeau Rips Off Canada.
Point conceded, although I hasten to add Ralph's infamous "Eastern bums and creeps" quote to the mix.
Another Alberta bumper sticker from the early 1980s foreclosure era said something like: ''Please, God, let there be another oil boom and this time I won't blow all my money away!"
> That being said, I understand that in most cases, "central" is referring to population, industry, finance (not fashion - that's Montrėal).
And that shift of centrality from Montreal to Toronto was surprisingly recent too, very much post war.
Montreal, and Quebec, absolutely feel like a separate country from the rest.
It's referring to the fact that Ontario and Quebec were Upper and Lower Canada, and as the country grew, things to the "West" and "East" were seen in that light, even though it doesn't make sense centuries later.
Sports leagues mirror those commmon conceptions. Toronto is always put in the East alignment of pro sports leagues. Apart from a rough patch for the CFL in the 1980s when the Winnipeg Blue Bombers were moved over to the East, they and the Jets have always been in the West.
The Leafs were in the West. LA beat them in the '93 conference finals after the infamous Gretzky high stick, they would have played the Canadiens in the finals that year. They lost in the '94 conference finals to the Canucks.
I forgot about that! They were in the Central Division of the Campbell Conference, which was renamed the Western Conference the next year, and didn't return to the Eastern until 1998-99.
My little grey cells don't seem to store Leafs info well. Oh, did you hear? Bill Barilko disappeared. He was on a fishing trip.
>like the British Empire treated it colony Canada, so does the country treats us
This persecution complex seems bizarre. The only entities exploiting Alberta are the oil companies who offshore billions of dollars in profits. Instead of growing their sovereign wealth fund the way Norway does, Albertans allowed themselves to be exploited.
Edit: I see now that when I wrote "created a fund like Norway" it was taken as implying Alberta didn't have a fund, when what I meant was "created one that is similar to Norway's fund". Edited for clarity.
1. Alberta has a wealth fund.
2. The amount Alberta has sent in equalization payments would have allowed us to have a far larger wealth fund than Norway has.
Also, you are aware that, no matter who exploits the oil, the Alberta government receives royalties from it, right?
Also, most of the foreign companies have joint ventures with Canadian entities and a lot of the money does stay within Canada and Alberta.
And even with all the equalization Alberta has sent, we're still the richest province by far. We just know we could be much richer still...
>Alberta has a wealth fund.
Since the 70s, yes, and it's minuscule because the oil companies socialize the risks and privatize the profits, less some token royalties. Norway's was established in the 90s and is multiple orders of magnitude larger, because they don't allow big oil to fuck them over.
>The amount Alberta has sent in equalization payments would have allowed us to have a far larger wealth fund than Norway has.
You are being fed a narrative.
Equalization payments are taken from federal tax revenues. Every Canadian pays taxes according to the same graduated tax rate schedule, whether Albertan or not.
Alberta does not "pay into" equalization payments. Provinces do not "send money to other provinces". That's simply not how the program works.
Equally, you are being fed a narrative. Yes, yes, every Canadian pays into federal taxes that are then dispersed amongst provinces to give a relatively "equal" standard of living, hence the term equilization payments. But why does Alberta consistently send far more money than it receives? Just what is it that allows Albertans to pay so much more in taxes? And of course that doesn't even get into how the equalization formula is created and applied, what sorts of things are factored into a province's "fiscal capacity" and what things get factored out, and whether those parts of the formula could be slanted to benefit certain provinces more than others. Of course at this point you'd probably deflect and say that the current equalization formula was put in place by the Harper government because you think that I must support the conservatives and this is some sort of gotcha.
The bottom line is that since the big oil and gas discoveries of the 60s Alberta has sent roughly 300 billion more to the federal government than it has received in return. This is of course part of being a province in a country, instead of a country itself like Norway is. And of course there has been mismanagement of the Heritage Fund, so Alberta is not blameless here. But the oft repeated talking point that Alberta doesn't actually really contribute disproportionately to the country is completely false. Why doesn't Alberta have a wealth fund on par with Norway? Because that money has instead been used to help fund hospitals, roads, schools and more across the rest of the country. I think that's a pretty good investment and I'm not upset about that, but I am upset when people don't even see that and choose instead to recycle a bunch of trite talking points that are basically lying by omission.
>But why does Alberta consistently send far more money than it receives?
The Province of Alberta sends no money at all. What part of this is so hard to understand?
I live in BC, and we also are considered a "have" province, and we also do not send any money.
The money comes from the Federal Government. It was never provincial money to begin with. It's tax money that is paid directly to the federal government by Canadians, and businesses. It does not come "from Alberta" or "from BC".
>Just what is it that allows Albertans to pay so much more in taxes?
Every single Canadian is subject to the exact same Federal Tax schedule. If you and I were in the same income tax bracket, we'd pay the exact same rate.
If Albertans are "paying more in taxes" (doubtful), then that's Danielle's problem. But not a single cent of provincial tax revenue gets put into Equalization payments.
I'll try one last reply in the hopes that you're not just playing willfully ignorant here. Alberta doesn't send money but "Albertans" do. Sorry for not being insanely pedantic with my terminology. Critically the federal government then dispenses money to provinces, so even if we want to be clever about the source of money, when it comes back it goes to geographically bounded provincial coffers, not the pockets of citizens. When people say that "Alberta" sends money, they mean that Albertans pay money to the federal government and then federal government spends that money elsewhere. And those borders matter when that money is being spent. I send money to the federal government and the federal government does not spend money in the geographical area where it would impact me. I'm happy that a person in Manitoba gets a new hospital, but that doesn't actually improve my life directly. So when people say that Alberta sends money to other provinces, that's what they mean. That provinces are able to create things for their citizens that they would not be able to fund otherwise because they received money from other geographic locations. The net in-out transfer is the bottom line. The people of alberta send X billion dollars to the federal government every year and the federal government sends X-10 billion dollars back to the provincial government, because that 10 billion is going to other provinces. This isn't rocket science unless you're trying hard to misunderstand.
The point about Albertans paying more is that they have higher incomes, so they are subject to progressive taxation (same as everyone, you'd don't need to reply thinking you've made a clever point). A combination of oil and gas revenue and a relatively business positive environment have made it possible for Albertans to pay more in taxes because they earn more. This is a good thing, but the point of contention comes out of the fact that there is no incentive for other provinces to try and improve their "fiscal capacity" when they can instead backfill their lack of revenue on the backs of the provinces, like BC, that are net contributors. If other provinces were faced with the having to cut services, or figure out how to improve their economies, they might undertake the work of improving their economy. But instead they can defer the hard choices and let Alberta, and BC provide that revenue.
At the end of the day I do just fine as an Albertan. One day oil and gas will be less important worldwide and Alberta will have to adapt. Luckily our economy is already more diversified than say, BC, which relies on real estate for a bigger proportion of its GDP. Better hope that trading houses back and forth continues to be a productive way to structure an economy. And even more importantly, once oil and gas subsides and Alberta can no longer provide per capita incomes ~15-20% higher than the rest of Canada what does the equalization formula look like then? I think that a lot of provinces are going to suddenly find out that they were taking things for granted and the money tap just isn't there any more. We'll see what happens at that point I guess, I feel pretty confident that Alberta will be fine, and hopefully it will force the rest of Canada to make some painful choices that will be better for the country in the long-term. But its going to suck in the short-term.
>When people say that "Alberta" sends money, they mean that Albertans pay money to the federal government and then federal government spends that money elsewhere.
I don't actually think most people mean this when they say it.
But hey, sounds like we both are on the same page, and I'm glad we agree that Alberta as an entity doesn't pay equalization payments.
It sounds like you have a problem with federal spending, and you're far from alone in that regard.
> Of course at this point you'd probably deflect and say that the current equalization formula was put in place by the Harper government because you think that I must support the conservatives and this is some sort of gotcha.
>you'd don't need to reply thinking you've made a clever point
>Better hope that trading houses back and forth continues to be a productive way to structure an economy.
These little jabs you keep putting in aren't helping your case. They just make you seem like a jerk.
> I don't actually think most people mean this when they say it.
It's this kind of deeply insulting and patronizing attitude that illustrates exactly why so many Albertans do want to leave Canada.
That's quite an overreaction.
It's not. It's an incredibly common strawman used in discourse on this topic (obviously it's relatively new to HN). They know it's a bad faith argument but it's used over and over to paint Albertans as illiterate rednecks.
This stupid argument comes up all over X, Reddit, etc... to muddy the waters and refuse to actually engage with the topic of equalization and the current formula used to determine how federal transfers are calculated and allocated.
See some of this poster's other comments...
> Alberta does not "pay into" equalization payments. Provinces do not "send money to other provinces". That's simply not how the program works.
You're being pedantic.
Income from Alberta workers gets taxed and sent to other provinces or citizens living in other provinces via various federal programs. If we were a separate country, all that money would stay in Alberta.
Splitting hairs over the precise "how" doesn't change the fact it's money siphoned out of Alberta to other provinces.
>Income from Alberta workers gets taxed and sent to other provinces or citizens living in other provinces via various federal programs. If we were a separate country, all that money would stay in Alberta.
And you'd be incurring lots of new expenses like border controls, national security, etc. The last estimates I saw were that the total equalization payments attributable to Alberta were about a tenth of the cost of federal government services provided to Alberta.
That is to say Albertan taxpayers would be on the hook for an additional 25 billion dollars annually, or so.
>Splitting hairs over the precise "how" doesn't change the fact it's money siphoned out of Alberta to other provinces.
It's not pedantic, you're just factually incorrect. It's money that all Canadians already pay to the government (because it's money from federal income tax). There's no line item in the Alberta budget for "equalization payments".
If we deleted the entire Equalization Program tomorrow, we'd all still be paying the same taxes.
Since you don't seem to want to write in good faith here (or maybe you just don't understand, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), from the horse's mouth:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/federal...
And federal transfers:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/federal...
If you really don't understand why Alberta pays more per capita, it's simple. We have more net taxpayers paying more federal taxes per capita.
From the link you posted:
>Provincial governments make no contributions to the Equalization program.
And:
>All Canadians are subject to the same federal income tax system and its progressive rate structure, regardless of where they live.
These both directly support my argument. I will make no further replies.
Your argument is against a strawman of your own creation that you're using to hand-wave away the actual topic.
If equalization is of no net benefit to anyone why does it exist? And why not just let Alberta leave?
The two links explain it anyway, for observers, and show federal transfer payments by province and per capita.
> If we were a separate country, all that money would stay in Alberta.
Yes. But you’d have to pay for your own border, army, customs, etc, etc.
By that logic every single province could separate, become a country, and then what? Is that supposed to be more cost efficient? Would the economy and free market between each province better? Would Alberta oil be worth the same price without having pipelines going through every province?
And then, why not have Calgary separate from Alberta. After all money from Calgary pays for roads in Edmonton and smaller towns. Surely we don’t want money leaving Calgary, if Calgary was independent, Calgary could keep its own money and not have their money “siphoned out”.
> Yes. But you’d have to pay for your own border, army, customs, etc, etc.
And? $45 billion of the Federal government's revenues come from Alberta. Another poster put the estimate of all these things at $26 billion. Sounds like an amazing deal.
> After all money from Calgary pays for roads in Edmonton and smaller towns
Municipal funds pay for roads, generally speaking. Provincial grants are only if it's proven that the road is essential infrastructure for the benefit of the whole province. The Federal government also gives grants from time to time.
alberta could also have had a wealth fund if it didn't have 0% sales tax, didn't do things like ralphbucks, etc.
norway and alberta take fundamentally different approaches to how they see the government and taxation. don't blame the federal government by saying individuals paying income tax somehow exempts the province from smart financial stewardship.
This is so true, but I've never heard it framed so clearly. Thank you!
As as Maritimer who moved to Toronto (but who came of age as an adult outside the Maritimes), your comment def wakes me up to the moral imperative of resisting the Toronto-centric framing in whatever ways I can
Look on the bright side; at least you're not from New Brunswick.
I dunno man. I grew up in Edmonton area and didn't much care about whatever in central Canada, and only had a vague sense of it despite having done a trip across Canada with the family when I was 8. Of course "western alienation" talk was all around from right wing sorts but my family paid no attention to it anyways.
Then I moved to Toronto in 1996 in the .com boom. I had spent plenty of time in Vancouver but living in Toronto was night and day in terms of vibrancy, culture, activity, economy. Toronto was a real living city and even Vancouver didn't compare. TLDR there's a reason why the country is in part Toronto centric. There's just a lot going on there. A lot of people, a lot of money, and a lot of culture. In the 90s especially it really was "downtown Canada." That would have been even more so in the period this article is talking about. It has nothing to do with Toronto people thinking they're superior, it has to do with the fact that this is the 3rd or 4th (depending how you count it) largest city in North America and nothing else in Canada even comes close.
I have lived both sides and most of my family is still in Alberta. The persecution complex out there is 100% bullshit. Nobody in reality is treating Alberta badly. It actually gets a remarkably good deal in confederation -- selling oil and gas to the rest of the country. Hydrocarbons aren't the centre of existence. Even after all these years of neglect and downgrading the manufacturing economies of central Canada are still a massive part of the GDP of the country, and the industrial policies that apply for them are not necessarily the same as for energy or forestry exports and that needs to be recognized.
Not to mention that this part of the world is where the bulk of the population still is. Yet I hear people in Alberta routinely talk about how they're somehow holding the whole country up. It's not factually correct. Not even close, unless you play wilful distortion of how equalization works.
Also, we are some of the the biggest customers of Alberta, Line 9 runs right behind my farm. 90% of the oil used here in Ontario is purchased via that line from Alberta, pumped from Edmonton. I also fail to see recognition of this from many pundits in Alberta. Even Harper was spreading misinformation about "Saudi oil tankers coming up the St Lawrence" -- that's just bullshit. The only part of our country that uses middle eastern imports is Atlantic Canada, for obvious reasons.
I don't see it as colonial at all. I think certain people got very aggressive when necessary moves were made around climate regulation. As a person who lived half their live in Alberta, and half their life here... I just think those people are wrong. a) It's wrong for Alberta to be so dependent on hydrocarbons and it needs to diversify b) Climate change is real and Alberta's exports play a significant role in that.
There is a lot of ... motivated ... disinformation spread by various actors in Alberta. People should be skeptical.
Respectfully, as an Albertan who still lives in Alberta, and who wants to remain a part of Canada I don't think that the persecution complex is 100% bullshit, and dismissals of it as such by eastern Canada only serve to reinforce it.
Re: equalization, of course the massive economy of Ontario makes a big part of GDP, but the point of Alberta's importance is that its economy allows it to make an outsized impact compared to its population. This surplus GDP/capita makes a huge difference in contributions to the equalization program wherein a province with 1/4 the population of Ontario can make the same size of contribution to the program. If you remove Alberta from the pool it becomes much much harder to retain the same size of payments to other provinces on the back of Ontario among others.
Second, Alberta has been one of the most under-represented province in the federal government, and that trend has gone on for decades. Lured by Alberta's economy people keep moving here and our ridings keep getting more and more people while we retain the same number of seats. This has been slowly changing as the government is basically forced to allocate more seats to Alberta and now between Ontario and BC, Alberta is no longer the most disadvantaged, but it still isn't a great situation.
Finally, there's all the one off issues that add up over time. As an example in the mid 2010s oil was in the gutters and Alberta was facing real economic issues. In 2015, there were roughly 35,000 job losses, and in 2016 there were another 25,000 direct job losses in the oil and gas sector. In 2018 when GM announced they were going to close their oshawa plant and put 3000 people out of work the federal government held an emergency midnight meeting to discuss how to help the workers. Those types of optics don't go unnoticed, that Alberta could lose roughly 100k jobs over 2014-2017 and that 3k jobs in Ontario gets a midnight cabinet meeting. Alberta still paid into equalization as a "have" province during that time, despite huge deficits as the provincial government tried to backstop revenue losses.
All of which is to say that the separation crowd is a bunch of bad actors and the flames of western alienation are certainly being fanned by people with ill intentions, but the core of that alienation stems from a real place and from real actions both current and historical, and glibly dismissing it is just not something I can agree with.
> Alberta has been one of the most under-represented province in the federal government
Each time Albertans (I'm a 4th generation of that group) complain about lack of representation within federalism, I remind them of the many golden opportunities that came and went with their popularly elected and re-elected federal parties in power for long stretches of time, with Harper even representing an Alberta riding, yet here we are with complaints that rehash the same old, same old stuff. Nothing about federalism is ever good enough for them even after all those years of pro-AB feds in power.
You're misunderstand my point here. Alberta, until the most recent seat redistribution, had the largest federal ridings by population. Now they're only the 3rd largest. That means that the average Albertan's vote was worth far less than the average Quebecer's, and faaaar less than the average maritimer's vote. It gives disproportionate power above and beyond just representation due to population. Its not about which party they vote or don't vote for, although we could dig into that too, as its not nearly as cut and dried at the reductionist take would make it seem.
If I remember correctly, the guidance from the Supreme Court on riding sizes is plus/minus 15% difference from average, with special cases of low population density over large geographic areas allowing as much as plus/minus 40% from average.
Electoral boundaries commissions in Canada have been obligated to take input from all who submit complaints about riding sizes. That's different than those commissions being able to actually achieve something asymptotic to ''parity'', of course, but the net effect is that all those golden opportunities in long term AB-friendly power were missed, as I say.
Confederation isn't a business transaction where everything needs to zero out every year.
Alberta's strong financial position today is thanks to all the work the rest of the country (private or public) put into building the infrastructure and economy - prospecting, railways, roads, military bases, etc.
Albertans may pay more taxes to the federal government than they get back in services but thanks to oil they probably have a positive trade balance with the rest of the country.
There is also zero guarantee that in 50 years Alberta won't be in a worse revenue situation than its neighbours and needing equalization. In fact it's likely.
Not just because there's the off chance that human civilization decides burning hydrocarbons is a really bad idea. But because Alberta is profoundly vulnerable to drought and water shortage due to deglaciation as a result of climate change.
Relevant:
https://thewalrus.ca/alberta-separatism-fuelled-by-russian-n...
I mean one of the opening paragraphs of that article is as follows:
"This is not because Alberta’s grievances are illegitimate. They are not. Albertans have real and long-standing concerns about energy policy, federal–provincial relations, and economic fairness within Confederation. Those concerns deserve to be debated openly and democratically by Canadians, among themselves, on their own terms. The danger is who has joined the debate and why."
This is my point. The separation stuff is clearly completely illegitimate, but the underlying causes of the grievances, several of which I've pointed out in my post above, are entirely real and legitimate, and just blowing it off as "meh, its just russian disinformation" etc, etc, is just a really lame way of not dealing with the issues at hand.
Appreciate the response and respectful tone, but almost none of this conversation makes sense to me because it's based on a strange assumption that Albertans should and must identify their own interests directly with the interests of the oil industry.
I do see that people often do that. I also think it's kind of a messed up perspective.
It's a destructive industry doing just as much harm (actually more, see forest fires, etc) to Albertans as it is doing to the rest of the world. Also as an Albertan who grew up watching his father cycle in and out of brutal unemployment on the cadence of erratic oil prices -- it's kind of a shitty patron to have, frankly.
There are other industries in Alberta. And new ones developing. But I just watched Smith's government sabotage renewables, so...
You're also seemingly making the giant assumption that people in Ontario somehow do the same around car manufacturers or something, or that people in "eastern Canada" have this monolithic view generally about either the west or whatever.
Ontario is actually often a giant sea of blue seats with red and orange in urban centres. It's actually a strong core of conservative support, historically.
But when conservatives take out of mainstream positions on cultural issues -- such as, I dunno, blockading the streets of the capital city, or effectively denying climate change -- they suffer at the ballot boxes even from people who often vote conservative.
I hated Harper, but he was smart enough to avoid this whenever possible. Can't say the same about the latest batch.
Anyways, I'm out there often. And my kid is going to do her BFA at the U of A (knock on wood, acceptances are this month), so I'll likely end up buying a house there long term and our family often talks about moving back there...
(BTW when Harper was in power we had the same blatant regionalism happening. I'd go out to visit family and find huge "stimulus" projects being built all over the province [e.g. Henday north construction, etc] while projects in Ontario failed to get funding ... unless the riding was a conservative one [see Vaughan subway extension, blatant vote buying]. The Canadian dollar sky rocketed to above the USD which severely harmed central Canadian manufacturing in ways it still hasn't recovered from. Should we have talked about central-Canada-alienation at that point?)
I acknowledge your perspective, fair enough, but it seems focused on the present. Western alienation goes far, far back, predating Confederation. The golden age of the Atlantic provinces goes back to a period hundreds of years ago, too. I'm just pointing out from a historical view that the cultural effect of so much power and influence being centred in Toronto and Montreal had, and continues to have, a large influence on Canadians, going back many, many generations. Some grind axes, others shrug, some stand up and shout "Excuse me, we've been here all along too, what about us?" I remain positive and upbeat that we'll sort it all out together.
I think what you're pointing at is potentially true but also that it's somewhat easily exploited by ideologically and money driven people for some rather ... what I would consider nefarious ends.
When I first moved here to Ontario I was blown away by how many people my own age didn't even know what/where Edmonton (a city of a million people, and the capital of the province) was, their only conception of Alberta was Calgary at most.
At the same time, I feel a strong sense of unease in the other direction when I'm out visiting family. There, again, there seems to be some confusion about what the country actually is.
I really love this country, having lived on two ends of it and driven across it many times. I've moved back and forth twice via Grayhound, 50+ hours slogging it across northern Ontario and the prairies stopping at every weird little town.
It's really something, what we've built here. I wish more people saw more of it.
Cold War RCAF brat here. Wherever Dad was transferred, that's where we went. It was a joy, but I've found over the years that folks sometimes get a bit cranky when I cannot pinpoint which part of Canada I'm from... for me, it has always been ''everywhere''.
> I remain positive and upbeat that we'll sort it all out together.
Quite possibly the most Canadian comment I’ve ever seen. There’s a reason we (Americans) love you guys!
I've lived my entire life just "down the road" from Toronto in Canada's 10th largest city. Always in the shadow of Toronto and the butt of many jokes.
Back when I worked in Toronto, people would always ask when I'd be moving there - because why would you want to live anywhere else?
I also remember, circa 2000, when the marketing people at the company I worked at were talking about advertising - they didn't see the point of spending on advertising outside of Toronto.
It's a very different mindset, that's for sure.
I grew up in Orillia, but my siblings and I all moved to your city. At the time it was just the closest to Toronto I could afford because all jobs are in Toronto. This city has grown on me, I wouldn't want to be any closer to Toronto.
Hello fellow Hammertonites
actually I'm rural Flamborough, but when I go to town... I drive right past Waterdown and go to Hamilton instead :-)
>I've lived my entire life just "down the road" from Toronto in Canada's 10th largest city. Always in the shadow of Toronto and the butt of many jokes.
The Hammer, no doubt.
Can confirm. I live in a small farming hamlet with a population of about 42,000 one hour outside Toronto and Canada Revenue Agency considers me "rural Canada" for tax purposes.
Had the title and focus been on ''Ontario'' or ''Toronto'', all would have been better.
Everyone in my tiny village of Victoria, BC dreams of one day visiting the city of Canada commonly referred to as Toronto
I'm in Toronto and I can confirm.
I mean, it gets worse. When I first moved to Toronto and became born again and in love with that city, I was even more of a snob and wouldn't even deign to consider as civilized any area that was north of Bloor.
Ok I live just outside Hamilton now, I'm reformed.
York University is in Toronto and the GTA is the most populous area in Canada, I don't think it's a vast conspiracy.
If you're referring to the title, it conflates a relatively small geographic area having a large, concentrated population (York University, GTA, Southern Ontario) with a vastly larger but less densely concentrated national population (the rest of Canada), so it is easily seen as irritating to folks in the latter. Not hard to understand. Not a conspiracy.
This is dumb. If he knew Canada at all, he'd know that Toronto is actually the only city in the Universe.
Well, it is the capital (/s).