Talk:Western alienation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
Hello, just wrote this article today, first full one i've done on wikipedia, its loaded with errors. I will definately be working on it over the proceding weeks, but any help people can give me on it would be greatly appreciated. Ive also requested a peer review, but I do not yet know how to direct it to the right section (Canadian politics). I am fairly knowledgable in Canadian politics, but a read-over by someone who knows more would be excellent to make sure everything is correct. Its referenced for the most part, just not correctly. Thanks a lot. --Gregorof 18:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Gregorof, thanks for your contribution. I have taken a run at it and tried to clean it up. I think tht the article is basically quite good. At times, though, it sounded like you were trying to make an argument for Western alienation, rather than write a neutral article about it. I have tried to make it sound more neutral, and have deleted a few points that were being repeated. The repetition of the same point over and over can make an article sound like a diatribe, rather than an encyclopedia article. Keep up the good work! Ground Zero | t 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Thought about that myself reading over after writing . . will keep it in mind for future edits.--Gregorof 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
neutrality??
"Economic factors
Economic factors, including equalization payments, have caused great discontent especially in Alberta. Equalization payments cost Alberta approximately $1.1 billion annually [7], less than that provided by, but significantly higher on a per capita basis, than Ontario. These payments are made by the federal government to the eight 'have-not' provinces. There are no federal restrictions over how this money is to be spent at the provincial level. Quebec receives $5.5 billion annually, making it the single largest recipient of these payments.[8]
British Columbia, as noted, has been a 'have-not' province for just over five years and will likely return to being a 'have' province in the near future. While being a 'have-not' province, it received the lowest payments besides Saskatchewan, recieving $107 per capita in 2006, approximately 1/7th of that of Quebec.[9]"
what does quebec have to do with any of this? [Unsigned comment by anonymous editor]
- Well, Quebec does have something to do with this because it is the largest beneficiary of the equalization system. Nonetheless, the passage you site is argumentative and possibly POV. This could be avoided by replacing most of the text with a table that shows for the most recent year the equalization payments made and received by province, and the per capita equalization payments by province. The reader then would be free to make his or her own interpretations, rather than having the article draw conclusions. For example, the passage cited notes that Quebec is the largest recipient, but it is not the largest recipient per capita. Ground Zero | t 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- .... which I have now done, and deleted the reference in the text to Quebec which is not a western province. Ground Zero | t 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Klein's threat to withdraw from equalization program
This threat was very usual, especially form somone who had been premier of a province for many years. Alberta or any other province is unable to "withdraw" from the program since it is not funded by collecting money from the governments of the "have" provinces. It is funded from the federal government's general revenues, i.e., the taxes we pay. The federal government will continue to levy taxes, and provide funding to "have not" provinces regardless of what Klein wants. Equalization is effectively a transfer from "haves" to "have nots" because federal taxes are raised in all provinces and then this program redistributes a portion of the taxes only to the "have nots".
- "A significant amount of its own funding is transferred by the federal government to the provinces and territories to support important social investments, such as health care and education. These are called transfers. Finance Canada administers these transfers. The key transfer programs are:
- "the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) and Canada Social Transfer CST), which go to all provinces and territories and are used to fund health care, post-secondary education and social assistance and social services;
- "Equalization, which ensures that less prosperous provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services without their taxes being out of line with those of more affluent provinces; and
- "Territorial Formula Financing (TFF) which provides territorial governments with funding to support public services, in recognition of the higher cost of living in the north."
Ground Zero | t 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I will listen to anybody s opinion about western alienation, but i am also honest, and I find it amusing that equalization has found its way into this article. mainly being that Geographically thinking, Alberta's equalization payments do not go beyond Manitoba. You see Alberta pays 1.1 billion, while B.C, Sask, and Manitoba receive 2.1 billion So unless you want to boot Manitoba out of the equation, it is irrelevant to this article, perhaps it should be saved for the Alberta Separation Article
[edit] Political Factors
"The Maritime provinces are constitutionally guaranteed a fixed number of federal ridings (most notably four in Prince Edward Island); this is not the case in Western provinces."
This is wrong. Every province is guaranteed a minimum number of federal ridings. A province can not have less MPs than the number of Senators they had in 1982 Constitution Act, 1982 - 41(b).
I'll remove the reference to this "fixed riding" guarantee --Sylguy69 17:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't currently have access to the original source material, but the bill that Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced (regarding the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan as distinct provinces) contains some very interesting turns of phrase that might indicate a certain mentality regarding the western regions of the country, even a century ago. Among them, if I recall correctly, were comments regarding the provinces' unique ability to provide resources for the rest of the country. In addition, the division between Alberta and Saskatchewan begins to look remarkably artificial, especially given Laurier's comments to the effect that if the region were one province, that it would perhaps possess too much influence. For anyone wishing to do further research into Western Alienation, Laurier's speech in Parliament might be a veritable trove of insight. It's possible that the attitude to "the west" has been colonial even from the start. Diaphane 02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Representation formula
I wonder if we can work in a link to [page] in the discussion on Representation numbers.
Also would be nice if we had a table showing the number of seats each area has and the percentage of the total, with the population of each are and a percentage of the total population beside it.
Something like...(number made up for this example)
| Area | Seats | % of total seats | Population | % of total population | |
| AB | 8 | 6% | 3,456,789 | 8% | |
| BC | 14 | 9% | 4,336,293 | 11% |
...and so on. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merger proposal
I have proposed that several related pages are merged together as they seem to consist of a lot of unsourced OR and very little sources for notability. I think it would be easier to maintain if they were brought together. --neon white talk 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
