Canadian Maps and Graphics

[Architype]

Originally Posted by esquire

It may be improving, but it's hard to be too self congratulatory when you have a substantial number of communities with anywhere from 5 to 15 people living in places like this...



Is there anything analogous to that in Denmark or Switzerland?

Over there it might be dismissed as a shabby chic distressed wood look. Here, this is the physical atrophic manifestation of our underlying societal problems.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by esquire

It may be improving, but it's hard to be too self congratulatory when you have a substantial number of communities with anywhere from 5 to 15 people living in places like this...



Is there anything analogous to that in Denmark or Switzerland?

One can't equate a top 10 ranking to being self-congratulatory. People understand that it means most countries faired worse than Canada overall based on the criteria of that study, not that everything is fine. If people are assuming the latter they don't understand what they're reading.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by isaidso

One can't equate a top 10 ranking to being self-congratulatory. People understand that it means most countries faired worse than Canada overall based on the criteria of that study, not that everything is fine. If people are assuming the latter they don't understand what they're reading.

All I'm saying is that there are quite a few communities in Canada that are in terrible shape from a human development perspective.

But since South Sudan is worse off I guess we're doing OK?

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by esquire

All I'm saying is that there are quite a few communities in Canada that are in terrible shape from a human development perspective.

But since South Sudan is worse off I guess we're doing OK?

Zero people on here said otherwise.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by isaidso

One can't equate a top 10 ranking to being self-congratulatory. People understand that it means most countries faired worse than Canada overall based on the criteria of that study, not that everything is fine. If people are assuming the latter they don't understand what they're reading.

At one point though the "best country in the world" rhetoric, complete with government ads hammering that point, was pretty strong and entirely based on the UN HDI rankings where Canada was first for a couple of years in a row IIRC.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

At one point though the "best country in the world" rhetoric, complete with government ads hammering that point, was pretty strong and entirely based on the UN HDI rankings where Canada was first for a couple of years in a row IIRC.

Even the most beautiful model in the world might have a festering pustule hidden in her groin region............

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

At one point though the "best country in the world" rhetoric, complete with government ads hammering that point, was pretty strong and entirely based on the UN HDI rankings where Canada was first for a couple of years in a row IIRC.

Here's a couple of those ads from 1992 for the "Canada 125" celebrations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_1sO3Dpdjw

Full minute ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNHsXzRQYh0

The Mulroney PC government at the time was the least popular government in Canadian history and Canada was in a severe economic recession with high unemployment. So it was a good ad to run given the situation but of course didn't help the PCs in the election the next year.

My city was not doing well at all and had an 18% unemployment rate. Quite a few people fell into poverty around this time in many parts of Canada.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Loco101

My city was not doing well at all and had an 18% unemployment rate. Quite a few people fell into poverty around this time in many parts of Canada.

It really did seem as though Canada saw the emergence of a new level of poverty in that era of the early 90s.

Unemployment was high, homelessness started becoming much more visible, and I know that in Winnipeg, some of the hardscrabble working class areas started becoming pretty rough, high crime neighbourhoods as street gangs became more prominent. Canada of 1985 and Canada of 1995 were like two different places in some respects.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

It really did seem as though Canada saw the emergence of a new level of poverty in that era of the early 90s.

Unemployment was high, homelessness started becoming much more visible, and I know that in Winnipeg, some of the hardscrabble working class areas started becoming pretty rough, high crime neighbourhoods as street gangs became more prominent. Canada of 1985 and Canada of 1995 were like two different places in some respects.

The recession of the 1990s bit hard. It hurt less so in Southern Ontario because manufacturing propped up the economy there. It bit very much so in resource-based economies and cities that were dependent on that.

That, combined with a focus on governments balancing budgets, really eroded a lot of the social supports. It was not a particularly happy time.

[JHikka]

With Federal riding redistribution taking place in 2021 and 2022, @ksituan has been producing some maps for the potential changes.

Seat allocation changes, 2012-2022


General trending sub-provincial


If 2021 Census numbers line up with estimate population numbers there's potential for the HoC to increase from 338 to 342 seats, with the following breakdown for 2022:

Province...........Seats.....2022.....Change
Ontario ............121........122......+1
Quebec ............78..........76.......-2
British Columbia 42..........43........+1
Alberta .............34..........38.......+4
Manitoba ...........14.........14........--
Saskatchewan ....14..........14......--
Nova Scotia ........11.........11........--
New Brunswick ...10.........10........--
PEI ....................4...........4........--
Yukon ................1...........1........--
Northwest Terr ....1..........1........--
Nunavut .............1...........1........--

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_C...redistribution

Within provinces, as mapped above, Brampton is due to receive the additional Ontario riding, likely with pieces of Mississauga-Malton pushed into Brampton. As it was noted on Twitter, Mississauga will not be receiving additional ridings and actually loses proportionally for the first time in forever because its growth does not outpace the province's average.

They produce a lot of great maps, so i'd recommend checking them out: https://twitter.com/ksituan

[MonctonRad]

Would they actually take seats away from Quebec!!!

Also, four new seats for Alberta! The Tories must be dancing in the aisles!!! (at least the Reformacon ones)............

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Would they actually take seats away from Quebec!!!

Also, four new seats for Alberta! The Tories must be dancing in the aisles!!! (at least the Reformacon ones)............

They would likely be new urban risings in Calgary and Edmonton though - which are the kinds that aren’t sure fire PC seats!

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Would they actually take seats away from Quebec!!!

The Liberals likely wouldn't, but IIRC any changes to the redistribution process have to be passed by Parliament. A majority, similar to how Harper instituted a lot of these rules we currently use, could simply overwrite them however they like.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

They would likely be new urban risings in Calgary and Edmonton though - which are the kinds that aren’t sure fire PC seats!

I recall reading somewhere that the effective additions in Alberta would be +1.5 in Calgary and +1.5 in Edmonton.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Would they actually take seats away from Quebec!!!
:

Don't they typically leave Quebec's seats at a minimum of 75, but increase other provinces' seats?

It gives the illusion that Quebec's representation isn't going down when proportionately it is.

[Chadillaccc]

Even with the addition of four seats, Alberta's representation (while already the worst) will get even worse. In the previous redistribution we were 112,000 per MP, now it will be 121,000. Quebec - with 2 seats removed - will be at the position AB is now.

Alberta, Ontario, and BC will be essentially equally under-represented at 121,000 per MP a piece. So at least Alberta isn't alone in the "get fucked" club now.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Don't they typically leave Quebec's seats at a minimum of 75, but increase other provinces' seats?

It gives the illusion that Quebec's representation isn't going down when proportionately it is.

They made a weird adjustment rule to give Quebec extra seats last time but as I recall they didn’t word it very well and those seats could disappear this time, under the same rule.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Andy6

They made a weird adjustment rule to give Quebec extra seats last time but as I recall they didn’t word it very well and those seats could disappear this time, under the same rule.

I don't believe they'd ever drop us below 75 for symbolic political reasons, though.

There are other ways as I said to reduce Quebec's influence in Parliament (for rep by pop reasons, not necessarily devious).

Though I think either Meech or Charlottetown or both would have guaranteed Quebec 25% of the seats in the HoC, forever.

[MolsonExport]

Let's keep things in perspective. Wyoming gets the same Senate representation as California.
What I lament is the fact that rural regions (and their inhabitants) get way, way more representation than their urban counterparts. There would be a lot less corn pone politicking if their representation was proportional to their population and/or their economic clout.

In Quebec, les régions get way more political sway than metro Montreal, despite the fact that half of Quebec (and 2/3 of the economy) is metro Montreal

[jigglysquishy]

Saskatchewan won't get any additional seats for at least 20 years, more likely closer to 40.

But. We will see huge changes in how the seats are distributed within the province. Regina has 2.5 seats. Saskatoon has 3 seats. The redistribution will move Regina to 3 and Saskatoon to 3.5.

Suburban Regina and Saskatoon are strong Tory territory, but the redistribution might allow each city's urban areas to send an NDP seat.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Let's keep things in perspective. Wyoming gets the same Senate representation as California.
What I lament is the fact that rural regions (and their inhabitants) get way, way more representation than their urban counterparts. There would be a lot less corn pone politicking if their representation was proportional to their population and/or their economic clout.

In Quebec, les régions get way more political sway than metro Montreal, despite the fact that half of Quebec (and 2/3 of the economy) is metro Montreal

Isn't the under-representation of urban areas (vis-à-vis the "regions") pretty much the way things are in many, many countries? Perhaps most of them even?

I think it's partly a case of representation not following demographic change and a hangover from when our populations were much more rural, but I think there is probably some of that that's still deliberate for political reasons, and also even logical ones - it's not a bad idea to have a balance between urban and rural interests.

Though obviously that balance is extremely difficult to achieve.