CentrePort Canada | Winnipeg - Page 7

DAVEinEDMONTON · #**121** Posted **Sep 30, 2008, 4:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

LOts of information??? ... well beyond the fact that you obviously can't read, you're an incredible source of infomation.

Attention: Dave in Edmonton, please don't read further.

This thread is called Centre Port Canada (WPG) for a reason. It is not call compare Winnipeg's dominant position as the distribution centre connecting East and West Canada and the US Midwest to Edmonton's secondary container port to the small sea port of Prince Rupert.

Yeah thats the same.

With such generation of infomation, perhaps you'd also like to make comments about Edmonton's transit on Winnipeg's transit thread. What a brillant idea!!! ... You are only imbarassing yourself, by being so ignorant.

"imbarassing" is spelt "embarrassing"

Newflyer, I am not sure if you even read or remember your own posts or that of others in the Winnipeg Transit/Rapid Transit thread but I suggest both you or anyone else interested in seeing who is embarassing themselves on here by reviewing, say, the last 5 or 6 pages of posts in the Winnipeg Transit/Rapid Transit or the BRT Thread in the Winnipeg forum. There is no less than about a dozen different people posting about LRT in Edmonton or Calgary and other cities and making Winnipeg comparisons. Here is but a few examples:

- page 67 Newflyer post #1322 discussing riding on the Calgary C-Train
- page 67 Flatlander post #1324 responds about the C-trains
- page 67 posts # 1325,#1326 and #1332 from Thegreattait, 1ajs and Madsad also respond to the Calgary C-train posts
- page 68 Vid post #1350 discusses Edmonton's weather conditions in relation to the LRT and Winnipeg's weather
- page 68 posts #1353, #1354, #1355 Andy6, Greco Roman and Supai all post responses on Edmonton weather conditions re:LRT
- page 69 Vid post #1372 discusses the insulation of LRT cars in Edmonton

I could go on but I think everyone gets my point...it seems that comparing Winnipeg transit to that of Calgary or Edmonton on the Winnnipeg Transit/Rapid Transit Thread or the BRT Thread is okay for everyone...except according to you....me!!!!

I am not sure why you are such a hypocrite on this thread or any other for that matter.

I will continue to post when and where I like just like everybody else...sorry if that bothers you but...

newflyer · #**122** Posted **Sep 30, 2008, 5:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON

"imbarassing" is spelt "embarassing"

Newflyer, I am not sure if you even read or remember your own posts or that of others in the Winnipeg Transit/Rapid Transit thread but I suggest both you or anyone else interested in seeing who is embarassing themselves on here by reviewing, say, the last 5 or 6 pages of posts in the Winnipeg Transit/Rapid Transit or the BRT Thread in the Winnipeg forum. There is no less than about a dozen different people posting about LRT in Edmonton or Calgary and other cities and making Winnipeg comparisons. Here is but a few examples:

- page 67 Newflyer post #1322 discussing riding on the Calgary C-Train
- page 67 Flatlander post #1324 responds about the C-trains
- page 67 posts # 1325,#1326 and #1332 from Thegreattait, 1ajs and Madsad also respond to the Calgary C-train posts
- page 68 Vid post #1350 discusses Edmonton's weather conditions in relation to the LRT and Winnipeg's weather
- page 68 posts #1353, #1354, #1355 Andy6, Greco Roman and Supai all post responses on Edmonton weather conditions re:LRT
- page 69 Vid post #1372 discusses the insulation of LRT cars in Edmonton

I could go on but I think everyone gets my point...it seems that comparing Winnipeg transit to that of Calgary or Edmonton on the Winnnipeg Transit/Rapid Transit Thread or the BRT Thread is okay for everyone...except according to you....me!!!!

I am not sure why you are such a hypocrite on this thread or any other for that matter.

I will continue to post when and where I like just like everybody else...sorry if that bothers you but...

The difference between your posts and the once listed above, is the comparisons made in your list was not to suggest Calgary, Edmonton or any other city was better or more worthy than Winnipeg. They were made solely to put Winnipeg's projects into context.

If you want to use Edmonton.. and its significanly smaller transportaion infrastructure as a means to put Centre Port Canada into context than feel free, but don't think for one second that I am going to let some twit turn this completely valid Winnipeg thread into some kind of Edmonton vs Winnipeg pissing match in order to stroke your tiny ego..

Create your own little thread .. and watch how very few people from Winnipeg will even bother to acknowledge it. Or better yet create your thread in the Alberta Forum.. and watch how few people acknowledge it there.

The only reason you ( a jealous Edmonton forumer ) desided to try to hijack this Winnipeg thread is because nobody in the Alberta Forum see this as a realitive topic to Edmonton. Your insistance to post your Edmonton posts on a Winnipeg thread only reinforces the fact that Winnipeg is the real hub of trade in Canada and will become even more so in the coming years. Nobody here is destarately posting on an Edmonton thread .. trying to justify our city's place in this very important industry.

enjoy yourself....

Hopefully it provides you some level of comfort to have Edmonton mentioned in this Winnipeg thread, even if its as comic relief.

DAVEinEDMONTON · #**123** Posted **Sep 30, 2008, 6:11 AM**

Inland port idea floated
Ocean containers could boost economy
Murray Lyons, The StarPhoenix

Getting several dozen people from Saskatchewan to consider what it would take to build an inland container handling port hundreds of kilometres from tidewater seems like a challenge.

John Vickerman, a U.S.-based ports consultant who has worked around the world, succeeded Wednesday in getting a room full of shipping industry and economic development officials in Saskatoon excited about what an inland port handling ocean-going containers might do for the economy of Saskatchewan.

Vickerman, who has made a career of studying the logistics of ports and the transportation networks that serve them, told his Saskatchewan audience that Canada's rail network, combined with two new container ports at Prince Rupert, B.C., and Canso Strait, N.S., could make Canada part of a North American "landbridge" for the growing export output of Asia.

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font:****He says that Maher Terminals, the biggest container company in the ports of New York and New Jersey, jumped at the chance to install container-handling cranes and be the terminal operator in the two small Canadian centres.

"This is an emerging transcontinental network," he said. "The irresistible flow of Asian product is going to come at you from the West Coast or go around. It's going to go wherever it's going to be best served as distribution."

Canada is well-positioned to compete with U.S. railways and ports to move goods quickly across the continent, Vickerman said.

He says U.S. shipping companies complain container traffic gets stalled in a "two-day black hole" in Chicago as containers get transferred from the western U.S. rail network to the lines that serve the eastern part of the country.

If Canada put public dollars into fixing transportation choke points in the system, it could move more of that intermodal container traffic across the continent. He said Canada's two rail companies -- CN and CP -- could be moving 106 million tonnes of intermodal freight by 2020, which is more than 10 times what is moved now.Vickerman pointed out that the expected increase in container traffic arriving in North America by 2020 would exceed current capacity at U.S. ports by 200 per cent.
He said the U.S. West Coast port at Long Beach has run out of room and would need to find more than 3,600 additional acres somewhere to handle growth in container traffic.Vickerman is the owner of TranSystems Corp. which has assisted the U.S. military in figuring out how to move equipment and material quickly through ports. Using the test case of the Port of Tacoma in Washington, the study showed that building inland transfer ports could relieve pressure dockside at actual ocean ports and speed the movement of ocean containers to their final destinations inland.

He said having an inland port in a place like Saskatoon or Regina could help relieve the pressure on busy ports such as Vancouver, where expanding dockside capacity would be extremely costly because of land prices.

Dale Botting, the CEO of the Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership (STEP), says Saskatoon is well placed to study the opportunities of an inland port because it is served by the main line of CN and the secondary main line of Canadian Pacific. STEP is working with the Saskatchewan Agrivision Corp. at studying the benefits of an inland "port."

Sounds like there will be enough intermodal container traffic in the future to satisfy Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg...

Ruckus · #**124** Posted **Sep 30, 2008, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON

Inland port idea floated
Ocean containers could boost economy
Murray Lyons, The StarPhoenix

Getting several dozen people from Saskatchewan to consider what it would take to build an inland container handling port hundreds of kilometres from tidewater seems like a challenge.

John Vickerman, a U.S.-based ports consultant who has worked around the world, succeeded Wednesday in getting a room full of shipping industry and economic development officials in Saskatoon excited about what an inland port handling ocean-going containers might do for the economy of Saskatchewan.

Vickerman, who has made a career of studying the logistics of ports and the transportation networks that serve them, told his Saskatchewan audience that Canada's rail network, combined with two new container ports at Prince Rupert, B.C., and Canso Strait, N.S., could make Canada part of a North American "landbridge" for the growing export output of Asia.

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font:****He says that Maher Terminals, the biggest container company in the ports of New York and New Jersey, jumped at the chance to install container-handling cranes and be the terminal operator in the two small Canadian centres.

"This is an emerging transcontinental network," he said. "The irresistible flow of Asian product is going to come at you from the West Coast or go around. It's going to go wherever it's going to be best served as distribution."

Canada is well-positioned to compete with U.S. railways and ports to move goods quickly across the continent, Vickerman said.

He says U.S. shipping companies complain container traffic gets stalled in a "two-day black hole" in Chicago as containers get transferred from the western U.S. rail network to the lines that serve the eastern part of the country.

If Canada put public dollars into fixing transportation choke points in the system, it could move more of that intermodal container traffic across the continent. He said Canada's two rail companies -- CN and CP -- could be moving 106 million tonnes of intermodal freight by 2020, which is more than 10 times what is moved now.Vickerman pointed out that the expected increase in container traffic arriving in North America by 2020 would exceed current capacity at U.S. ports by 200 per cent.
He said the U.S. West Coast port at Long Beach has run out of room and would need to find more than 3,600 additional acres somewhere to handle growth in container traffic.Vickerman is the owner of TranSystems Corp. which has assisted the U.S. military in figuring out how to move equipment and material quickly through ports. Using the test case of the Port of Tacoma in Washington, the study showed that building inland transfer ports could relieve pressure dockside at actual ocean ports and speed the movement of ocean containers to their final destinations inland.

He said having an inland port in a place like Saskatoon or Regina could help relieve the pressure on busy ports such as Vancouver, where expanding dockside capacity would be extremely costly because of land prices.

Dale Botting, the CEO of the Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership (STEP), says Saskatoon is well placed to study the opportunities of an inland port because it is served by the main line of CN and the secondary main line of Canadian Pacific. STEP is working with the Saskatchewan Agrivision Corp. at studying the benefits of an inland "port."

Sounds like there will be enough intermodal container traffic in the future to satisfy Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg...

My thoughts as well, truly.

It is a network of inland ports, it is not the inland port.

Ruckus · #**125** Posted **Oct 1, 2008, 1:58 AM**

The following article has some interesting insights WRT rail investment, and also highlights CN's goal for the Port of Prince Rupert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmonton Journal

Rail upgrade to Fort McMurray almost complete
David Finlayson, edmontonjournal.com
Published: Tuesday, September 30, 2008

EDMONTON - The $135 million upgrade of the former Athabasca Northern rail line to Fort McMurray is 75 per cent complete and CN has commitments from oilsands customers to ship sulphur and petroleum coke to Asia, executive vice-president Jim Foote said today.

[...]

This year's $430-million Western Canadian spending program also included improving the line between Edmonton and Prince Rupert, where CN opened a container port a year ago to take goods from Asia to Eastern Canada, and the U.S. through Chicago.

Foote said the U.S. housing slowdown meant Prince Rupert container traffic didn't grow as fast as expected, but is now up to speed at 65 per cent of the terminal's capacity.

That translates to 10 to 12 trains a week, compared with two trains prior to the new port's construction.

Two giant container ships a week now visit Prince Rupert, which is two days closer to key Asian centres than any other West Coast Northern American port.

But the ships still have to visit other ports to fill up with products going the other way.

Foote said CN is working hard to make sure more than the current 30 per cent of containers go back to Prince Rupert full.

They opened a $20 million centre in Prince George to put forest products into containers, and three years ago built a centre in Edmonton which tips the containers on end and pours grain into them, he said.

"We don't have a crystal ball, but so many people have great ideas. If you had told me three or four years ago we would be shipping diluent into the oilsands in containers we built, and shipping ethanol back to Asia for animal feed, I'd have said you were crazy."

dfinlayson@thejournal.canwest.com

© Edmonton Journal 2008

Source

thegreattait · #**126** Posted **Oct 1, 2008, 11:44 AM**

Source: from Hacks & Wonks Blog
http://www.hacksandwonks.blogspot.com/ near the bottom of the page

The Bigger Picture

Andrew Coyne makes a point about the proposed Canada-European Union Trade Deal that sparked a light bulb in my head:

I'm sorry, but this is huge. Huger than huge. Hugeastic. Hugeriffic....Understand what this means. If we pull this off, then Canada would be the only developed country (Mexico has its own deal) with guaranteed access to both the European Union and the United States — the two richest markets in the world, with 800 million consumers between them. Locating in either the US or the EU would give a firm guaranteed access to only one. Only by locating in Canada would they get both. [h - emphasis added.]

He's absolutely correct. Such a deal would have a tremendous positive benefit for Canadians. The US-EU deal is years away from being possible. Possibly decades. Protectionism and politics will constantly be a stumbling block on that front.

But Canada....We're the lovable cousins of Europe. We can get this deal done and it will mean billions upon billions in positive net trade. Practically guaranteed.

Now....What worries me:

Were I to ask the fifty-seven Manitoba MLAs at the Legislature if they realized that these talks were going on, how many could tell me they were happening next month? How many would really be thinking about it? Discussing it? Figuring out how Manitoba could capitalize on the development?

Ten? Maybe 15?

The Premier sure. Ditto the Trade Minister (Swan). I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that at least another five or six cabinet ministers are keeping up to date on files like these. Plus a handful of opposition members.

Shouldn't preparations for a massive business and industry luring campaign start being laid right now? These are the issues that Manitoba's future relies on much more than puppy mills and voting dates, as important as those are. *a voice whispers from the sky: "Almost none at all..."*

Let's get on this one folks. We're talking something potentially large here.

Trust me.

Let's dream about something more ambitious than novelty forts and porti potties.

Coyne continues:

But it’s the strategic advantages that are so compelling. Now imagine that we also sign a free-trade agreement with India (or Japan), as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, among others, have recently advocated. We would stand at the crossroads of international trade and investment.

Doesn't that just spark just a little bit of entrepreneurialism within the soul? There's opportunity happening here.

Someone please show leadership on it. Let's make it so that Manitoba is the first province out of the gate when it happens.

Posted by The Hack at Monday, September 22, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ruckus · #**127** Posted **Oct 1, 2008, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

[...]But it’s the strategic advantages that are so compelling. Now imagine that we also sign a free-trade agreement with India (or Japan), as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, among others, have recently advocated. We would stand at the crossroads of international trade and investment.[...]

Add China into the mix, and we are indeed in the thick of things, a promising future lies ahead for Canada.

newflyer · #**128** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

Add China into the mix, and we are indeed in the thick of things, a promising future lies ahead for Canada.

I have a general concept of the breakdown of our (Canada) trading partners, but does anyone have the exact breakdown of maybe the top 10 along with the percentage of trade in $$ terms.

I think it would add alot to this discussion.

Ruckus · #**129** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 3:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

I have a general concept of the breakdown of our (Canada) trading partners, but does anyone have the exact breakdown of maybe the top 10 along with the percentage of trade in $$ terms.

I think it would add alot to this discussion.

I recall some pie charts and graphs from a Canada West Foundation report illustrating international exports for different provinces...I'll try to find it.

EDIT: Okay, here's what I was thinking of...

Quote:

Note: Figures are for exports of goods (merchandise) and do not include exports of services. For further explanation, see the note on
p. 87.
Source - State of the West 2008 - Page 17/18

Quote:

Originally Posted by State of the West 2008

Although countries such as China and India have become
much bigger players on the world economic stage, the US,
by a large margin, is the most important market for the
West’s international merchandise exports (data on exports of
services are not readily available). The US was the destination
of between 61.2% and 88.5% of goods leaving the West for
foreign markets in 2006, with Alberta at the high end of the
range and BC at the low end.
Asian countries are the West’s second largest export
market with BC leading in this regard. Looking at the West
as a whole, less than 5% of merchandise exports are sent to
member countries of the European Union. Saskatchewan has
a the highest percentage of exports heading for destinations
other than the US and Asia, with 7.5% going to the EU and
11.6% to other countries.

It is important to keep in mind the relative size of the
western provinces when interpreting these data. For example,
Alberta’s trade with Asia accounts for a smaller percentage of
its total merchandise exports than other western provinces.
However, Alberta sold more to Asian countries ($5.3 billion)
than Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined ($3.9 billion).

The percentage of merchandise exports going to the US
was higher in 2006 than 1992 across the West. As was the
case in 1992, Alberta’s trade in 2006 was the least diversified
in the West in terms of the destination of exports. There were
some notable changes to trade patterns. For example, onequarter
of BC’s merchandise exports were destined for Japan
in 1992, compared to 13.6% in 2006. In 1992, 12.4% and
9.3% of Saskatchewan’s merchandise exports went to China
and Japan respectively. The percentage fell to 3.2% for China
and 3.4% for Japan by 2006.

Note: Figures are for exports of goods (merchandise) and do not include exports of services. For further explanation, see the note on
p. 87.

Source - State of the West 2008 - Page 17/18

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

More information, draw your own conclusions...

Quote:

Originally Posted by State of the West 2008

The West’s contribution to Canada’s total GDP (35.3%) is
larger than its share of population (30.4%). The West’s share
of total economic output has risen modestly over the past two
decades; its current share is slightly higher than the average
of 31.1% over the past 20 years. Alberta’s booming economy
and high oil and gas prices have pushed its share of GDP up
considerably. Within the West, Alberta’s share has increased
from 36.1% in 1992 to 47.0% in 2006. In contrast, the shares
of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have declined and are now
half of what they were in the early 1960s.

Source - Chapter 10-13 - Page 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by State of the West 2008

Overall, services producing industries account for
roughly two-thirds of Canada’s total economic output.
Goods producing industries account for the remaining one-third.

Within the West, services producing industries play a
somewhat larger role in the economies of BC and Manitoba.
In Alberta and Saskatchewan, goods producing sectors are
more prominent. One-fifth of Alberta’s economic activity is
in mining and oil and gas extraction. Major goods producing
sectors in Saskatchewan are oil and gas, agriculture, and
mining. As a percentage of provincial output, Manitoba
has the largest manufacturing sector in the West. However,
manufacturing is a larger part of the economy in the rest of
Canada, particularly Ontario and Quebec.

Source - Chapter 10-13 - Page 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by State of the West 2008

The West’s exports are predominantly commodities,
reflecting the region’s comparative advantage in the efficient
and cost-effective extraction of natural resources. The
largest percentage of goods leaving BC for foreign markets
are manufactured goods. However, it is important to note
that much of this is related to forestry. Not surprisingly, oil
and gas sales dominate Alberta’s export mix. Despite its
reputation of being primarily an agricultural province, over
half of Saskatchewan’s exports are from oil and gas extraction
and mining. Manitoba stands out in the West with a relatively
broad array of manufacturing sectors playing a larger role in
terms of total exports.

Source - Chapter 10-13 - Page 20

Source - Chapter 10-13 - Page 20

*NOTE: The above figures do not reflect exports of services, only goods (merchandise).

Source

newflyer · #**130** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 5:02 AM**

Of course I was refering to the national trade numbers .. import and export.

I don't think provincial trade numbers really mean much in terms of national trade routes.

Does anyone have the national trade numbers.

Ruckus · #**131** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

Of course I was refering to the national trade numbers .. import and export.

I don't think provincial trade numbers really mean much in terms of national trade routes.

Does anyone have the national trade numbers.

An alternative way of looking at Canadian imports and exports; how industry sectors differ among provinces and influence national trade routes and policies.

Meaningless? Hardly.

Sorry, but I don't have the specific information you're looking for. The first place I would look is Statscan, economic figures or something.

newflyer · #**132** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 6:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

An alternative way of looking at Canadian imports and exports; how industry sectors differ among provinces and influence national trade routes and policies.

Meaningless? Hardly.

Sorry, but I don't have the specific information you're looking for. The first place I would look is Statscan, economic figures or something.

The fact that one province exports a particular product has little connection to how or where it is exported to. Therefore it is meaningless in terms of international trade. Sorry.

FYI .... 2007 GDP numbers (indexed)

AB 182.3 Billion
BC 150.4 Billion
MB 38.4 Billion
SK 37.5 Billion

source: stats Canada
http://www.statcan.ca/english/nea-cen/index.htm

As the prices of potash continue to crash ... SK looks like it will be weaker in 2008 & 2009.

newflyer · #**133** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 7:22 AM**

Here are the import / export numbers for Canada

1ajs · #**134** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 8:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

As the prices of potash continue to crash ... SK looks like it will be weaker in 2008 & 2009.

it will also affect manitobas miing industry is comodies keep going down... even alberta will hurt but the whole world is going to so yea.. we are all in this mess its called we let things get outa hand now we suffer aka lending money... didn't the 1929 happen cause of simmlar moey problems because people were borowing money to buy stock ect

Pegger5 · #**135** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 2:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON

"imbarassing" is spelt "embarassing".

Dave, if you are going to criticize someone for their spelling maybe you should learn to spell first. It is "spelled" NOT "spelt".. and it is "embarrassing" NOT "embarassing" Wow, you just proved something to a few of us...

Again, debate this in your own Edmonton forum. Let the Winnipegger's debate among themselves...

rypinion · #**136** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pegger5

Dave, if you are going to criticize someone for their spelling maybe you should learn to spell first. It is "spelled" NOT "spelt".. and it is "embarrassing" NOT "embarassing" Wow, you just proved something to a few of us...

Again, debate this in your own Edmonton forum. Let the Winnipegger's debate among themselves...

Way off topic, but I believe both are correct. The spelling 'spelt' is English, while 'spelled' is American English.

Pegger5 · #**137** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

I recall some pie charts and graphs from a Canada West Foundation report illustrating international exports for different provinces...I'll try to find it.

EDIT: Okay, here's what I was thinking of...

Source - Chapter 10-13 - Page 9

Source

If you take Oil & Gas out of the mix then Manitoba would be right up there; if not actually leading the West and with a much smaller population than AB or BC.

Pegger5 · #**138** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 3:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

Way off topic, but I believe both are correct. The spelling 'spelt' is English, while 'spelled' is American English.

Other way around. Americans shortened it. Canadians learn the Oxford not the American dictionary. Anyway, no biggie, he still got embarrassing wrong..

Andy6 · #**139** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pegger5

Other way around. Americans shortened it. Canadians learn the Oxford not the American dictionary. Anyway, no biggie, he still got embarrassing wrong..

My Concise Oxford Dictionary (6th edition, 1976) gives "spelt" and "spelled", in that order. I think that "spelled" is the standard Canadian spelling, however. I'm an editor and if I ever saw "spelt" I would change it.

DAVEinEDMONTON · #**140** Posted **Oct 4, 2008, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pegger5

Dave, if you are going to criticize someone for their spelling maybe you should learn to spell first. It is "spelled" NOT "spelt".. and it is "embarrassing" NOT "embarassing" Wow, you just proved something to a few of us...

Again, debate this in your own Edmonton forum. Let the Winnipegger's debate among themselves...

change noted...I was concentrating on the "e" versus 'i"...must have been a slow night for all you Winnipeg forumers