Talk:Central Canada

Central Canada Isn't a Thing
I've lived in Quebec, Ontario, and BC, and I've never heard of anything called "Central Canada". It's not a term that's ever been used on our news. I've only ever heard of "Western Canada" (Manitoba and everything west of it), and "Eastern Canada" composed of Ontario and everything east of it. Usually Nunavut and NWT are referred to as "Northern Canada". I've hear Yukon being lumped in both with North and Western Canada. Indeed, after a quick wiki search, Wikipedia itself seems to confirm this. I'm sure many Canadians would appreciated it if the American editors would stop trying to create a new geographical region in our country.65.94.235.251 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This article is made up, everyone refers to ON / PQ as Eastern Canada. If you use geography MB and NU would be Central Canada. Kav2001c (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c
 * I agree that Ontario and PQ are generally called Eastern Canada, but it's not universal.
 * For instance, Canada.ca describes the five regions as being Atlantic Canada, Central Canada, Prairies, West Coast, North.
 * But the fact that basically nobody actually uses this classification is something that should be mentioned in the article. The East is either Ontario and everything East of it, or just Ontario and Quebec. (At least in Atlantic Canadian usage, Eastern Canada always means only those two provinces and never includes Atlantic Canada.) 24.89.232.58 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
I live in Ontario, and I don't know anyone who would call themselves a Central Canadian, or say they live in Central Canada. generally, Ontarians refer to themselves by their city (i.e. Torontonian) or as an Ontarian. and sometimes, although much less frequently, and more broadly, an Eastern Canadian.

You're right that "Central Canadian" is probably not be a label for regional self-identification the way "Ontarian" and "Quebecois" are. But look at a newspaper like the Globe and Mail: "Central Canada" is used often to talk about things like the industrial base in those two provinces, or TV programming scheduled to fit into prime-time in the eastern time zone. I've changed it to say that the term's use is "limited and regional." Is that an improvement?

Yes, that makes a lot more sense. thanks

"Thus, when these two provinces act together they can control the federal government, and often impose their will on the rest of Canada."

That doesn't sound very "neutral-point-of-view".

Agreed, this needs to be changed!

This entry should note that the term "Central Canada" is basically a regional usage, limited to Ontario and Atlantic Canada. It is correct that the term is rarely used in Quebec. Neither is it used in Western Canada, where "Eastern Canada" is preferred to describe the region east of Manitoba.

I just checked in the Canadian Oxford school atlas and also on Google maps on the Web. Quebec goes more than 170 km further East and into more and more salt water than Nova Scotia's Cape Breton Island.

Regional Usage
I think we either need a good citation to back up the claim that the term "Central Canada" is a regional usage, or else we should remove this assertion from the article. I'm an Ontarian, and the term is fairly uncommon in everday usage. More often than not, when I hear this term, it is being used by a Canadian from elsewhere in Canada decrying the supposed hegemony of the people of Ontario and Quebec working together to control the federal government. Other than this context, it seems that most of the time when someone needs to speak exclusively of Ontario and Quebec, they just say "Ontario and Quebec". --thirty-seven 07:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree and have read so much crap from "Western Canadians" about the alleged conspiracies they believe, out of total ignorance (ever heard of the BLOC?) that "Ontario" (which never votes the same; only the first past the post electoral system sometimes causes total flukes of the Ontarios looking united politically itself, let alone with Quebec -- see Fair Vote Canada for the totally distorted election results we end up with due to FPTP. But western ("Canadian") politicians refer to the mythical "Central Canada" all the time and just read the book David Kilgour wrote about his unbelievable ignorance, spreading total paranoia about "Central Canada's" conspiracies against the poor, poor west (Inside Outer Canada; just Google it and you'll find it and will be able to read a good part of it for nothing).


 * Then there's the talk-radio shows like the Rafe Mair show in B.C. with nothing but endless loops of complaint in gripe-fests (to quote philosophy professor John Dixon of Vancouver) and conspiracies that are laughable, always referring to "Central Canada" as though it's some united political entity out to get the rest of the Canadas (which is why we call it the Canadas; plural, not singular becase THAT is utterly ridiculous) or try any half-decent political discussion forum and see what "Western Canadians" have to say about the conspiracy theories their politicians and news media and parents and grandparents and Uncle Bob and everyone else they know drilled into their heads from birth. If you haven't seen it, you're not looking very hard. Maybe try subscribing to one with some spam email account (typically needed to be able to post messages as opposed to reading them, after one validation email, such as around phpBB2 and vBulletin and such forum software), look for, usually 3 or 4 Albertans who have totally taken the site over with their superior race and hatred of "Central Canada" delusions ... make an open post explaining that you're from southern Ontario, Central Canada and/or Quebec, Central Canada and/or Montreal, Central Canada and/or Quebec City, Central Canada and/or Ottawa, Central Canada or the absolute best (worst), Toronto, Central Canada and make some political point against the "conservatives" (western reform-alliance, which is why it was shut out of every major city in the Canadas other than Calgary and Edmonton of course) and see what happens, "Canadians".


 * I don't and can't even call myself "Canadian" due to the insanity in these country about "Ontario" which Ontario? I am from Toronto and always make sure to let everyone know, to do unscientific market research for kicks, listen to all of the delusions and absolute hatred out there in whatever y'all think "Canada" is and why; inevitably every single problem that everyone has ever had in "Canada" is the fault of...) or "southern Ontario" or "Quebec" or "southeast Quebec" or the Windsor-Quebec City corridor/Main Street (hwy 401 and Autoroute 20 to Quebec City, called "Main Street by flipped out "Canadians", which is totally screwed up on the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor page as though VIA Rail created it, or the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor, which is the real "Central Canada" with all of the political power in the Canadas, totally screwing the rest of the country: so "western" Canadians (Winnipeg, Manitoba is almost dead centre of the Canadas east to west) claim -- and via what amounts to aliens in flying saucers from Mars to do it; they beam their eeeeevil tactics to Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (it's actually Toronto-south Ontario-U.S., Ottawa-Hull/Gatineau-U.S., Montreal-southwest Quebec-U.S.), to make the lives of the rest of "Canadians" as miserable as possible.  I'd wager that some idiotic "western Canadians" (which western Canada?  Around the propaganda way up and out there, it's all the same in all of my online experiences for many years, but never in reality other than around confederate politicking and the "western" newz media) had a good part in creating this ridulous mainspace propaganda article.


 * And propaganda of all things, does not belong in encyclopedias and propaganda is all it is.


 * Take a look at a political map of "Ontario" (the Ontarios, which should be at least five separate provinces; and will be and at least three provinces in the former Quebecs because we have absolutely nothing in common with one another on any level; and particularly with our norths but it's really rural folk in general and just look at any confederate political map of the Canadas to see it quite clearly and particularly in the Ontarios where the Hick Party only won seats where city regions start to give way to farmland out in the urban fringes) but due to FPTP, it will be assumed that you're gay, a "foreigner" ("Who here isn't other than the Aboriginal peoples?" is what I always respond with when some "western Canadas" and "Ontarios" and "Quebecs" and "Atlantic Canadas" mob is trying anything to discredit clearly cited sources, not what "I" have to say about anything, and I also tell them to take it up with the sources, because y'all don't like to hear about realities out there either) and a Liberal with a capital L at the very least, just by sticking "Ontario" as your location on a phpBB2 (or the like) web discussion forum about "Canadian" politics.


 * Why is almost all of rural Ontario blue (um, that means "conservative hicks" won the federal electoral districts/FEDs that some "Canadians", particularly "western" Canadians still call "ridings" as though this is Britain because they haven't changed in the last 100 or so years other than with technology upgrades from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and other countries, with one foot in mad cow dung and the other in a "holy puddle" of pig urine for anyone who doesn't know) on the Ontario electoral map from the last confederate election and why isn't rural Quebec "conservative" when polls that I've seen around but didn't keep or note the sources of, claim that "north Quebeckers" despise "the south" (by which they mean the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, though they know nothing abou it, as usual around ignorant rural hicks) and claim that they are much more close to "Western Canada", by which they mean the north Ontarios on west, and of course they are -- they're hicks. Just don't get Metro Vancouver mixed up with it; it's never elected a single western "reform-alliance" hick/nutcase).


 * Then Google +harper +"tom flanagan" +"central canada" to find out about the "school" of Stampede Town and Harper's good buddies from there all have to say about it, and what they all preach about "Western alienation" and "Central Canada", with much venom. They're trying to pretend that they didn't say or write any of it now, to try to sucker "Central Canada" into giving them a majority dictatorship, but until the western reform-alliance is gone from the alleged "Conservative Party of all of Canada", well I can't wait until the Hick Party wins a majority dictatorship because it'll be the end of the pathetic Canadas, as is, and all transfer payments will end along with the federal government, just a union of republics so y'all can endlessly bitch and moan about poor, poor you but y'all won't be able to blame anyone but yerselves fer your self-created problems.  A federal election in the Republic of South Ontario won't affect any of y'all one way or another.

“Western Alienation” is a bad idea in search of a reality, while Canada is a great reality in search of an idea. And there’s a connection. -- John Dixon, The Last Spike


 * And he tries to get it right in that paper but is a raving lunatic without a clue in the world what he thinks he's talking about; as usual out of the western/Atlantic Canadas and north Ontarios and everywhere in the Quebecs outside the Windsor-Quebec City corridor; and plenty inside it, because there are lots of alienated hicks due to the information "revolution", the digital divide, the ignorant who aren't coming out of the next Dark Ages, don't know much of anything real about rather vastly expanding global trade/economics called globalization for short, the New World Order and such, stuck 100 years back in time compared to people who live in major global cities and the Canadas only has two of those: Toronto (a beta global city) and Montreal (gamma, if any stats bother with gamma global cities given that the criteria are very low and there are hundreds of them; and I'd throw Vancouver in as a gamma global city, just due to the Vancouver ports, but nothing ever does; just Montreal; if they bother to cover gamma global cities}.


 * Then try Statistics Canada, search for quebec windsor corridor or québec windsor corridor (it makes no difference, the StatsCan search engine will turn up anything with e or é in it, and other Quebecois, not French, according to them and the real French who don't have a clue or care in the world about "Québec" to see what you don't find about the most important communications/transportation corridor in the Canadas with nothing I can even prove anymore because the London (Ontario) Chamber of Commerce has removed the "leaked" document, likely by order of Statistics Canada, from its web site.


 * But if you Google the title, "Tracking Trends in London" (in quotes) by Statistics Canada and you might find a transcript of a radio broadcast out of London regarding "the good folks from Statistics Canada rolling into town" to deliver the document because it had a page of information about the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (W-QCC) in it, which is exactly what Statistics Canada calls it, on this end, not the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor and all they documented was the population of the W-QCC from the 2001 Census: 10,706,513 in the Ontario section, 93% of "Ontario's" population, 6,327,354 in the Quebec section of the W-QCC, 87% of "Quebec's" population, 17,033,867 in total, 57% of "Canada's" population, nothing about VIA Rail, even though the revenues VIA makes in the W-QCC pay for VIA Rail all over the Canadas. For now.


 * They didn't bother with any GDP or federal revenues received from the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, but they hand deliver the reports to Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, they hardly ever publish anything about it at Statistics Canada, because it'd make all of the lame excuses out there all too clear as being totally lame propaganda based on nothing but lies, because if politicians lose the "Western alienation" they invented, they'll lose a very useful tool to manipulate everyone way up and out there with, against "Central Canada".


 * And I just read the first paragraph on this ridiculous page. I found a copy of it last night in text format doing some research and it's as hilariously (and disgunstingly) biased and totally full of shite as your politicians and media are.  I'm sure there's lots more to come... I've put up with quite more than enough shite from "western" Canadians in particular about "Central Canada" and "Ontario", the Ontarios, plural, and "Quebec", the Quebecs, plural, the south Ontarios, plural, and certainly the Torontos, plural (the "GTA thing" because it's what Toronto means unless "City of" is specified). --S-Ranger 15:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "Central Canada" is very commonly used anywhere in the country. Its use in Ontario/Quebec does not seem to be much more or less common than anywhere else.  But there *is* regional difference in the attitude towards the use of the term.  I don't believe that many residents of Ontario or Quebec object to the term referring to only those two provinces.  But many Canadians, particularly those in the west and in the fat north, do object, primarily because of simple geography.  Southern Ontario and Quebec is not at all central.     And I don't believe very many Canadians at all, even Quebeckers,  would include the Quebec far north as part of "Central Canada." Király-Seth 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Montrealer here. This is anecdotal, I know, but I too have never heard of Ontario and Quebec being called "Central Canada" or the "Central provinces" in a regional context. I've heard it used once by an Albertan in a political context to refer to, as another Wikipedian said, disparagingly refer to supposed collusion between Ontario and Quebec to control the Federal government. As far as I've ever been aware, there has only ever been Western Canada (everything west of Ontario) and Eastern Canada (everything more or less east of the Manitoba/Ontario border, including the Maritimes/Atlantic Canada). Further, it also doesn't make sense-- if there was such a thing as "Central Canada," it would clearly be Manitoba with MAYBE some of Saskachewan and a bit of western Ontario. The fact that the reference for "Central Canada" appears to come from a 2015 article in which a politician is quoted just adds to the dubiousness of the claim.Stibs84 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Quebeckers

 * Often, Quebeckers (Québécois) do not see themselves as Canadians, primarily because of the distinct Francophone culture which they feel is radically different from the culture of English-speaking Ontario.

The above used to state "do not see themselves as Central Canadians" and when I went to remove Central, it obviously didn't even belong in this Central Canada article, no matter how much y'all want to discriminate against Ontario out there, it's just not proper for an encyclopedia, nor is it true.

This has nothing to do with "Central Canada" and belongs (and is probably already on) the Canada page or a sub/stub article off it. Quebec sovereigntists do not see themselves as Canadians, period, but what percetange with what proof/verifiability? They lost two referendums on their own, despite cheating on/for their side to separate from Canada (not Ontario), which is the reason the Clarity Act 2000 (CANADA) was created by the federal government in the first place.

Since when do Québécois or Quebecker sovereigntists single out Ontario as the reason they don't see themselves as Canadians? When Upper Canada was created in 1791? Upper Canada isn't called Ontario, it's called Upper Canada and if that's what the above is referring to, then it belongs on some Upper Canada/Canada West - Lower Canada/Canada East page as history and properly dated with proper verifiability.

They've got quite a number of English-speaking people in Montreal (over a million, more than the populations of all of the Atlantic provinces and Saskatchewan doesn't have a million people either) and to the south of them in the U.S. as well and Ontario, which only has 106 of 308 federal seats (34%) but it's somehow up to and the fault of Ontario alone that Quebec sovereigntists don't (allegedly) "feel Canadian"? It's up to the whole country (if anyone even knows what "feeling Canadian" or even "being Canadian" means anymore; without using spoon-fed political/media propaganda) and they get far more support from Ontario than they do from Western Canada. Though if that were going to be stated in any article, it would need proper verification.

Hence, the above belongs in the Canada article, not some Central Canada article that singles all of the Ontarios out as the reason Quebec sovereigntists mightn't (take your pick, or ) "do not see themselves as Canadians" (not Central Canadians, which Ontarians don't see themselves as either, as already discussed on this page) or even the above is totally worthless even on the Canada page or whatever political stub; even though it's stated as a cultural issue, by whomever wrote the above, then turned into a political issue (when Central Canada is a geographical reference, not a political jurisdiction) all I've ever heard from Quebeckers, including the Bloc and Parti Québécois, is that they think that the federation/federal government is broken beyond repair and that federal taxes are way too high.

But that doesn't constitute a legal reason to separate from this federation or as a legal reason to use under international law; it constitutes grounds for democratic reforms, but they don't believe that any will ever be done; and I tend to agree; the federation is broken, the federal government is broken beyond repair and there is little doubt or dispute that federal taxes are too high in Canada, not just in "Central Canada".

Prove that 'they' (a majority of Quebeckers/Québécois, not even Quebec sovereigntists or separatists, the latter being rather wishy washy, via an unbiased source, no original research is allowed on Wikipedia) feel that they are not radically different from the culture of Montreal, the U.S. and the rest of Canada, and then you have the Quebecs to deal with because I have seen many polls concluding that whatever "northern Quebeckers" consider themselves to be (how far north of the 401-Autoroute 20 to Quebec City, Windsor-Quebec City corridor, not Central Canada) more like "western" Canadians (which includes the north Ontarios from there) than southern Quebeckers/Québécois.

What proof (or even common sense) states that they don't feel that their culture is radically different from the usual urban to rural and rural to nowheres in the Quebecs, let alone the provinces of Newfoundland & Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick even though it's the only other officially bilingual province mentioned in the (Canadian) Constitution Act 1982, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta (whose premier has been rather mouthy/offensive to Quebeckers and Québécois), British Columbia (the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island of B.C.), or any of the territories or any of the states of the U.S., including Lousiana?

Prove it or dump it and no one is ever going to prove "Central Canada" re: Quebeckers/Québécois "not feeling Canadian" is true: Not without violating WP:NPOV at minimum. --S-Ranger 17:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed again

 * "Ontario and Quebec are the most powerful and influential provinces, politically and economically, and this is often bitterly resented by the Western and Atlantic regions of the country. Central Canada is often regarded as an outside hegemonizing force, against which the other provinces must stand on guard to protect local interests.


 * "The economic, political, and cultural power of Ontario is often seen as a dangerous force, requiring them to also protect the French culture and Quebec business interests. Another reason is geographical: only one province (Newfoundland and Labrador, and only a small percentage of that) extends further east than Quebec."

The above was on the mainspace article for Central Canada but it cites no sources, there is no proof of any of it, just political propaganda, which does not belong in encyclopedias.

How do you all explain that a puny 7 MPs (Members of Parliament, federal in Canada) and one mouthy premier from Newfoundland & Labrador is getting more of Ontario's fair per capita share of its own revenues back from the federal government, via the mess of transfer systems, than the Ontario government gets to keep for itself in revenues per capita?

The Toronto Board of Trade (City of Toronto, not GTA or Toronto CMA) Toronto's Fiscal Gap Now a Fiscal Chasm (pdf) or here for both PDFs on the HTML page to do what you wish with the links. I'd still recommend right-click then Save Link/Target As... then opening them in free Adobe Acrobat reader instead of in your web browser.

Or this:

The Toronto Board of Trade

"Strong City, Strong Nation Update: The Growing Gap" (pdf)

January, 2006

Or go through this, backwards, reading the Phase 1 Report first ("recommendations", the Phase 2 Report start the document), Google every citation in the Phase 1 Report, download and read all of the research/documentation and every other reference made in this paper, if you (um, whomever, I'm looking at a video display) to try to dispute it:

Ontario Chamber of Commerce

''[http://occ.on.ca/Policy/Reports/52 Fairness In Confederation Fiscal Imbalance: A Roadmap to Revovery, and; Driving Ontario to ‘Have-Not’ Status]'' (the latter, Phase 1 report, is appended to the Phase 2 report/recommendations)

David MacKinnon, August, 2005

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce endorsed the Phase 1 report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce above, so good luck trying to dispute any of it. And if "you" (whomever) do, please take it up with the sources, not here.

How does eeeeevil Ontario (south) manage to get itself raped, plundered and murdered by little Newfoundland & Labrador or any other province that ends up with more revenues per capita because the CHT (Canada Health Transfer), CST (Canada Social Transfer), CSIF (Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund), MRIF (Municipal-Rural Infrastructure Fund), SHIP (Strategic Highways Infrastructure Fund), on and on, "tax points" and even EI (Employment Insurance) equalization on equalization on more equalization, and also the real Equalization transfer, which shouldn't exist with the CHT and CST around.

And it's exactly how other, much more influential (with far fewer seats/MPs, far lower populations/markets/voters, in) provinces end up with more of Ontarios revenues per capita than it gets to keep for itself. What kind of massive economic or political "power" does that amount to for Ontario? It amounts to Ontario (even though it's no singularity on any level by any stretch of the imagination) being walked all over by this federation, and Quebec is the least of our problems regarding that.

When looking at federal transfers you have to look at them in per person/per capita terms, not meaningless totals, because they're all worked out/paid out on a per capita basis.

Equalization Entitlements (2006-07)

(per person) _______________________________________                        2006-07   % of Province                 $ each   Total _______________________________________ Prince Edward Island    2,102    23.03 New Brunswick           1,927    21.11 Nova Scotia             1,475    16.16 Manitoba                1,445    15.83 Newfoundland & Labrador 1,334    14.61

Québec                    725     7.94 British Columbia          107     1.17 Saskatchewan               13     0.14

Ontario                     0     0.00 Alberta                     0     0.00 _______________________________________ TOTAL                   9,128   100.00 _______________________________________

_______________________________________                        2006-07   % of SUMMARY                  $ each   Total _______________________________________ Atlantic Total          6,838    74.91 Prairie-B.C. Total      1,565    17.15 Québec Total              725     7.94 _______________________________________ TOTAL                   9,128   100.00 _______________________________________ Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. [Don't ask me; they add just fine. Ask Finance Canada, which doesn't even provide totals, let alone percentages. It's their note, not mine and as per usual I have no clue what they think they're babbling about, given that there is nothing to round. If it stated "Note: This is total bull-sh.t, don't rely upon any of it because we're trying to hide everything possible," then it might make some sense.]

% of Total is the what it states, the total is $9,128 per person in Equalization transfers alone and the percentages are based on that total.

Source: Department of Finance Canada - Equalization Program

Last updated (by source): 2006-07-05

Last checked/updated: 2006-07-09

_____

It could almost be looked at as the Atlantic Canadas, central Canadas and western Canadas. In fact, it can be looked at that way entirely and is in the SUMMARY section. Finance Canada doesn't have any summary section, but feel free to check the oh so complex mathematics (Excel® did it anyway). Same totals, and the percentages add up to 100.00 (of $9,128 per person in total, which is what the percentages are based on so they'd better add up to 100.00000000000000000~%).

Note that Ontario is missing from the above (at the source). And of course it's missing, someone has to pay for all of it and Ontario is the one and only jurisdiction in Canada that has never received the Equalization transfer (even when it was entitled to collect under federal laws and regulations, they laws were changed so Ontario didn't qualify; twice), and Ontario gets ripped off around almost every other federal transfer by these federation, because of its omnipotent hegemonizistic (try finding that in a dictionary; or hegemonizing at Dictionary.com) of political power.

There's no doubt about the economics of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (which is what Statistics Canada called it in the 2001 Census; on the Ontario end anyway, not the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor), but whether it translates into anything political, particularly in Ontario, is not only debatable, it's an outright lie that everything in Canada that matters has acknowledged: other than the federal government, which just makes itself more and more irrelevant to south Ontario and southeast Quebec (the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, with 60% of the markets of the Canadas, over 60% of its GDP, and on about 7% of the land mass of the Canadas), every day.

Add in the CHT and CST and TFF (Territorial Formula Financing, their federal Equalization system) along with Equalization transfers to the provinces and territories:

Major nowhere near all) Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories

2004-05 and 2005-06 sorted from the highest, per person, to the lowest for 2005-06.

''CAD dollars ($) per person (per capita, same thing) in confederate/federal transfers to each province and territory for fiscal years 2004-05 and 2005-06, the percentage (%) the amount of the transfers are of total jurisdiction's revenues (pittances of federal tax returns for Ontario, Québec, BC and Alberta; confederate handouts for everything else; on top of getting 100% of all federal receipts collected from them back) -- but for the previous fiscal year. Confused? Welcome to the Canadas.''

______________________________________________________________ JURISDICTION            2004-05    %  2005-06    %   Change ______________________________________________________________ Nunavat Territory       $25,975   88% $28,061   91%  UP  3% Northwest Territories   $16,633   78% $17,951   80%  UP  2% Yukon Territory         $15,727   76% $16,818   78%  UP  2%

Prince Edward Island    $ 2,930   39%  $3,291   42%  UP  3% New Brunswick           $ 2,739   36%  $3,111   39%  UP  3% Newfoundland & Labrador $ 2,449   32%  $2,966   34%  UP  2%* Nova Scotia             $ 2,455   39%  $2,793   42%  UP  3% Manitoba                $ 2,428   38%  $2,717   40%  UP  2%

Quebec                  $ 1,757   25%  $2,052   26%  UP  1% British Columbia        $ 1,383   18%  $1,570   19%  UP  1% Saskatchewan            $ 1,332   20%  $1,487   28%  UP  8%** Ontario                 $ 1,322   21%  $1,487   21%  UP  0% Alberta                 $ 1,321   16%  $1,486   16%  UP  0% ______________________________________________________________ TOTAL                   $78,451   40% $85,790   43%  UP  2% ______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________                                  AVG           AVG   AVG SUMMARY                 2004-05    %  2005-06    %   Change ______________________________________________________________ Territories Total       $58,335   81% $62,830   83%  UP  2% Atlantic Canadas Total  $10,573   37% $12,161   39%  UP  3% Prairies Total          $ 5,081   63% $ 5,690   73%  UP 10%

Ontario and Québec Total $ 3,079  36% $ 3,539   37%  UP  1%

Rest - (ON+QC) Total    $75,372   44% $82,251   46%  UP  3% ______________________________________________________________ * NL moves up one position over NS from 2004-05.

** SK up the highest of every jurisdiction in percentage of provincial revenues in handouts from 2004-05 to 2005-06.

Territories = Nunavat Territory + Northwest Territories + Yukon Territory.

Atlantic Canadas = Prince Edward Island + New Brunswick + Newfoundland & Labrador + Nova Scotia.

Prairies = Manitoba + Saskatchewan + Alberta.

ON = Ontario

QC = Québec

AVG % (of "provincial"/territorial revenues) and AVG Change in SUMMARY is not the sum of the percent changes from fiscal 2004-05 to 2005-06 but are the average changes (totals divided by the number of jurisdictions; e.g. AVG Change is (3 + 2 + 2 = 7) / 3 = 2.3 percent change for the territories).

Source: Department of Finance Canada - Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories (scroll down for all jurisdictions)

Date modified (by source): 2006-03-29

Last checked/modified: 2006-05-20

_____

Reality is reality and the paragraphs move from the main article above are nothing but propaganda, the usual from "western" and Atlantic Canadians, nothing but lies and discrimination against Ontario and Quebec. It's too bad that there is no such thing as any unified political entities or all of the Ontarios or all of the Quebecs, let alone both combined (as I said previously, has no on ever heard of the Bloc Quebecois? We don't have any equivalent for that in Ontario, but the western Canadas do, with the Reform-Alliance "conservatives", we've got the Bloc on one side the Hick Party from Stampede Town on the other side), or we'd keep billions of dollars more of our own revenues here in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (not "Ontario" and "Quebec"; the "Ontario" government is on very shaky ground as well as some singularity in these federation, Ontario needs to be at least 5 provinces) where our fair per capita share of our own revenues belong. And why bother being fair when nothing else in the Canadas is fair to the Ontarios?

And the "Ontario" government is worthless, which is why all the businesses in Toronto and the south Ontario, via the suddenly South Ontario Chamber of Commerce (though it did get some input from the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, nothing else in the norths)are bypassing all politicians, to use the economic might we have to get our fair share of our own revenues out of these federation for once.

What is more important around political institutions (politics) than the amounts of money they force your employer (or you if self-employed) extort from you out of the (sort of) money you make in exchange for the work you do and what you get back (or don't) from that extortion?

The above proves quite clearly that the territories get the most of their (and our) money sent back to them by Finance Canada, then the Atlantic Canadas, then the prairies, with "Central Canada" at the bottom getting back the least in exchange for our work and with Ontario at the bottom of the heap. That is what politics amounts to and most important politicking around.

So why doesn't Ontario use its almighty omnipotent political power to force the federal government to give us our fair share of our own revenues back? And why not in combination with Quebec, totally ignoring the rest of the Canadas and threatening every political party that if they don't put that issue front and centre, we won't vote for them? It's what the above implies, along with potential "invasions" of who knows what that causes those in the "Outer Canadas" (outside the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, but we also include the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island; ask David Kilgour, Edmonton Alberta why HE calls it Outer Canada, not us) that you have to "stand on guard" against.

It makes no sense at all. People from all over the "Outer Canadas" are moving to the Ontario section of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor along with an average of 60% of all immigrants to the Canadas. Who has to stand on guard for what again? Moosejaw? Medicine Hat? Certainly the Aboriginal peoples do (and we in the civilized world with them) with the western Reform-Alliance Hick Party, even with a minority federal government.

And particularly out west in the deserted prairies. Is Alberta standing on guard to get qualified human resources for just about everything, because it waited, did nothing to attract the human capital it needed for far too long? They can't even get enough skilled tradespersons out there and are running ads in Toronto and who knows where else to get people with skills to move to Alberta, which amounts to "standing on guard" against what? Their own stupidity?

If ANY of the above, removed again after giving everyone a chance to address verification, which is not done by simply removing the tags, it's done by finding reliable sources, according to the standards of Wikipedia, no mine or anyone else's, with credibility, without bias, is added again, it'll simply be removed again because it's a load of mad cow dung, has no basis in fact (just politicking, propaganda, outright lies), which does not belong in an encyclopedia.

And if anyone is going to add any of the above back, please at least provide the courtesy of addressing the comments (and proof) on this page first. Thanks. --S-Ranger 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A credible source or not?
On the Quebec page, this is stated in the opening paragraph:


 * "Quebec, or Québec in French, (pronounced or  in English and  in French) is a Canadian province, in Eastern Canada..."

And in the first sentence of the Ontario article:


 * "Ontario is the most populous and second-largest in area of Canada's ten provinces. It is found in east-central Canada..."

If either are claimed to be in "Central Canada" then the first sentences of both pages must be corrected to state Central Canada. --S-Ranger 03:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How common is "Central Canada" usage in Ontario?
From the intro:
 * The term "Central Canada" is used in Ontario and Atlantic Canada but rarely in Quebec or Western Canada.

I think that "Central Canada" is also only rarely used in Ontario; I cannot comment on how common it is in Atlantic Canada. In my experience, the majority of the time I encounter the phrase, it is being used by western Canadians, either ironically or to complain that Ontarians are conceited because they call themselves and Quebec "Central Canada".

Obviously some people use this phrase, but it seems to me that this must be mainly a limited political or economic usage (and even then a minority usage) and certainly not used in normal discourse. In my opinion, this article comes across as a bit POV by implying (without citation and in my experience counter-factually) that this term is used non-rarely in Ontario and Atlantic Canada and then spending half the article ridiculing how inaccurate this term is geographically --thirty-seven 06:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that problem seems to have been solved nicely. Now it reads like an encyclopedia instead of the National Enquirer or the like.  But this is not only out of place, it's also unnecessary and potentially misleading:


 * "Central Canada, particularly southern Ontario, also houses the headquarters of many Canadian national institutions and large corporations."


 * So does the Quebec section of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, the Montreal area in particular (corporate headquarters and Quebec City has a national assembly not a provincial legislature and to Quebeckers who believe so, Quebec is a nation and its national assembly is its federal government, not confederate mound), which, for the most part, is already stated in the paragraph above it. And southern Ontario is called southern Ontario (or south Ontario), not central Canada.  It's also called the Ontario section of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, not central Canada.


 * And that Ottawa, the national capitol, I mean capital is in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor; it's in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor for that matter, not "central Canada" so of course national institutions are there; it's what national capitals are for.


 * It looks more like some attempted jab at southern Ontario ("Canadian" style; success is eeeevil; particularly in south Ontario where all eeeeevil, the source of everyone's problems in the Canadas allegedly come from, with hilarious propaganda that who knows how many western and Atlantic Canadians ... and north Ontarians and Quebeckers believe) than anything else, so I removed that too.


 * I think that the page just states what is relevant and as it is now; encyclopedic, with all the information (and links and a map) necessary. --S-Ranger 19:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From my Atlantic vantage point, "Central Canada" is used sometimes, but not often, to refer to Ontario and Quebec (usually in some sort of diatribe about economic power or somesuch, which would thus limit it to the W-QC corridor). Though if we really wanted to goad the Ontarians, we'd say "Upper Canada". Kirjtc2 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

History
The article used to state:


 * "Historically, Ontario was once called Canada West, and Quebec Canada East."

With the map of central Canada (as of today) on the article it's misleading, because the northern borders of what are usually referred to as Upper Canada and Lower Canada, because Canada West and Canada East didn't last for long, didn't include any of the north Ontarios or Quebecs when they were Upper/Lower Canada, and there were no links to Upper Canada or Lower Canada.

But I created this:


 * "Historically, southern Ontario was once called Upper Canada and later Canada West, and southern Quebec Lower Canada and later Canada East, as the original Union of Canada as referred to in the British North America Act 1867 (now Constitution Act, 1867), the Confederation of the Union of Canada, to become the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, adding the then British colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick."

...and do think that some historical references should be given to the original Canada. I just don't like any of the wording and there are probably lots of internal links I'm missing and I couldn't find a page that addresses Upper and Lower Canada as the original Union of Canada untl 1867. Upper Canada just pops up out of nowhere on the Canada page in its History section, with no mention of Étienne Brulé (explored what is now southern Ontario in 1610–12), Henry Hudson (who sailed into Hudson's Bay in 1611 and claimed all of the lands that flowed into it for Britain), Samuel de Champlain reached the east shores of Lake Huron in 1615, French explorers and missionaries started to colonize what was then just New France, Rupert's Land (the first governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, British Crown corporation, was named Prince Rupert; hence Rupert's Land) and "Unexplored wilderness" out west, looking for the northwest passage.

Then the American Revolution moved lots of United Empire Loyalists (expatriated but Brits loyal to the motherland, King & Country, who knows) into what's now south Ontario, not just the Atlantic provinces and the trappers and whatnot from Rupert's Land into what's now south Ontario and the French-Anglo struggle for what was to become Upper Canada (south Ontario) decades later, began.

But that history doesn't belong on a page with a map of Ontario or Quebec (or anything else but Uppe Canada/Canada East and Lower Canada/Canada West ... and orientation of some sort to show where it was/is, even in North America) on it, as they exist today. I'm not quite sure where the history of the real Canada, the original Canada, goes. It's certainly not on the Canada page and the above isn't exhaustive nor is it meant to be. It just gets the labels and links Upper Canada and Lower Canada in, and tries to explain that they certainly weren't "central Canada" as Ontario and Quebec as they exist today.

Frankly it's a mess (what I wrote), but it's a start of a tiny bit of history of the region, which should only point to internal links in brief summary; if at all.

I'd appreciate it if it would be left for a week or so, to see if I can improve upon it and others almost certainly can, but without going into anything major; just getting the proper internal links together in a short summary, or just chopping it to:


 * Historically, southern Ontario was once called Upper Canada and later Canada West, and southern Quebec Lower Canada and later Canada East.

I'll be happy to do so myself in a week or so if I can't improve it or no one else tries, and no complaints if the blabber after the above is chopped right now, because improvements should probably be worked out here before going onto the article. --S-Ranger 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Central Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211074227/http://www40.statcan.ca:80/cgi-bin/getcans/sorth.cgi?lan=eng&dtype=fina&filename=demo05a.htm&sortact=2&sortf=6 to http://www40.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/getcans/sorth.cgi?lan=eng&dtype=fina&filename=demo05a.htm&sortact=2&sortf=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)