I've been saying the same thing as Hirsh for the past 5 years.

Canadian elections are all about Class Warfare. City residents against rural residents. Brampton and York Region were well known for chasing the poor into Toronto for years and years. The Toronto police were so upset with this warfare, that in many cases they refused to co-operate with York Regional with criminal investigations.

The community councils in rural or rich areas of Canada refuse to fund welfare for any resident in need. Thus; they force every unemployed person out of their community and into the city such as Toronto. Out of sight .... Out of mind. Then, they complain about taxes and resent investments or rob the cities of infrastructure monies to deal with the poor, while at the same time insist on tax breaks.

Then, they insist that thousands of cops be hired at 100 thousand a year each to ensure that the poor don't try and make their way back into the community which has just evicted them and forced them to move to the cities.

Rural Folks in rural areas got no problem paying for 75 thousand a year to house a prisoner in a pennitentiary because they are built in rural areas which provides employment for rural voters and a tax base. They refuse to invest money into the cities, but encourage the building of prisons in the middle of some farmer's field.

Calm

There has always been an urban-rural divide, the way of life of each is so uniquely different, however I think what is exacerbating the "conflict" is the fear and resentment of immigrants. Many Canadians, especially those living outside the cities, feel the "Canadian way of life" is being hijacked by immigrants. In fact, many people have moved away from urban centres to escape immigrant communities. My father lives in an adult townhouse community and last summer I had the occasion to attend an outdoor party there. I met three elderly couples who moved from neighborhoods in Toronto because of the encroachment of new immigrants. The venom they expressed about what they saw as the decline of Canada, was disturbing.

It is interesting to note that there is a similar divide in the U.S.-Republican/rural vs. Democrat/urban. 

I want to add some "popular support" caveats to what you said. 

If we're talking about the west (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, & Manitoba)...

In BC & Manitoba, the Lib/Dem/Green won the popular vote.

The Tories won the popular vote in Alberta & Saskatchewan.

If we're talking about Quebec vs. "The Rest of Canada"...

The "rest of Canada" voted for more Lib/Dem/Green than Conservatives.

Quebec was just the icing on the cake.

If we're talking "urban", a quick look at the "major centres" data suggests...

The Conservatives lost almost every major city in Canada.

They were even shut out of most western cities.

Their only major city wins coming in Calgary & Edmonton.

Again, we're talking "popular vote" here.

A guage of popular sentiment.

This at a time when the Liberals were fielding their weakest leader in modern history.

You would expect a Conservative sweep across English Canada & the cities.

But they couldn't pull it off.

My question for everyone:

Does the current seat distribution reflect that 80% of Canadians live in urban areas?

Is federal seat distribution regularly adjusted to reflect population concentration?

Or has the seat count been this way since confederation?

(I know I can google for this info, but I'm busy with other work.

So perhaps someone who already knows can answer it for me ).

If you are correct about large numbers of older Canadians being unreasonably hostile towards immigrants, you can count on having the problem solve itself - one funeral at a time.

Of course not.  There is no intention that it should.  The cities are deliberately badly short-changed of seats.   It's a hangover from the days, when rural ridings were so much larger, and transportation and communication were much more difficult in them than in compact urban ridings.   This is no longer the case, but the two old parties like to pretend that it is.

There is an authority that studies re-distribution constantly.  After each ten year census it reports to Parliament, and changes are made to some riding boundaries, and to the number of seats in Parliament.  

The number of Quebec seats remains constant, and all of the other provinces are compared to Quebec. (Let me say that is a perfectly fair system by the way, in case anyone of you thinks that it is not.)

An exception is Prince Edward Island which is massively over-represented, because of a clause that says no province can have fewer M.P's than it has Senators.  (P.E.I. has four of each.)

The recommendations of the most recent report were badly skewed so that Ontario will not get all of the extra seats that it deserves, based upon population increases here.    This province deserves 21 more seats, but it will get only 10.   B.C. and Alberta will of course get their fair share.  That seems to please people in the rest of the country, Conservatives are particularly delighted with the news.

If, like Stephen Harper,  you live in Alberta, and you were smart enough to put all of that petroleum and natural gas into the ground in the first place, you can't see any reason why Ontario should get its fair share of federal ridings.

Answered above. 

"We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are."   A. Nin

Yes, particularly if we're Albertans. 

The situation in much of Europe is decidedly different than in Canada.   Cities are much more autonomous there - much less dependent on "higher" levels of government. 

We are still in the 19th century in that respect. 

( Ex-T ): If, like Stephen Harper,  you live in Alberta, and you were smart enough to put all of that petroleum and natural gas into the ground in the first place,

Actually a brilliant idea - it would save all the geological prospecting costs. Be careful what you post ....... it might be taken seriously ! Charles may be interested, he would know where all the gold, diamonds and oil are stashed .-) ... and just truck it away again when needed.

( Boris ): But in general, European cities come under regional, departmental or state governments just as they do here.

I very much suspect, given the early history of European cities, that they in fact have acquired more autonomy. They were the first to throw off the yoke of feudalism and sovereign subjection. The big cities ( Paris / London / Berlin / Petersburg ..... ) were in fact hot beds of revolution against the monarchies. Might be a good Agenda topic, to discuss the balance of power: Canadian cities vs. provincial and federal priorities.

While I agree with both Boris and Dieter there is also conflict within the "urban" side of the equation.  Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver to a much lesser extent may vote in blocks for mainly one party Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Ottawa, London, Kitchener, Quebec City and Halifax do not.  My point is that there is divide on the urban part of the equation so maybe it is the big 3 versus the ROC as the Tories seem to have a current lock on the rural side of the equation.  Maybe a majority for any party needs to be won in the remainder of the urban vote and not in the big 3?  Maybe the issues in the balance of metropolitan areas are slightly different than in the big 3?