# The Three Nations of Canada (2016 version)



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2016)

Joel Garreau wrote a book called "The Nine Nations of North America" which I really like and regularly refer to.  That, together with Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" resonate with me and help to shape my perspective on things.

It occurs to me that there is another way of slicing and dicing Canada to try and come to terms with its reality.

Conventionally we talk of provinces and territories (13 of them) or regions (usually the Atlantic, Quebec and/or Ontario or Central Canada, the Prairies and/or BC or the West, and the North).  We talk of French and English and Natives and occasionally immigrants.  Historically we used to talk of Catholics and Protestants although now we focus on Muslims and Jews.

I suggest that Canada can be more clearly defined if it is considered as three entities which I will intentionally not name.

Entity 1 exists in the St Lawrence Lowlands.  It covers the ground from Windsor to Quebec and hugs the banks of the St Lawrence Seaway.  In some places it is only as wide as the river itself.  In Ontario you have left it by the time you reach Peterborough.  It includes the greater Toronto and Montreal communities and encompasses some 18.4 million Canadians, or something better than half the population of Canada.  Its total area is roughly 41,000 km2 and has a population density of 449 Canadians / km2.

Entity 1 is roughly the same size as,  and has a similar population to, the Netherlands.

It is well served by road, commuter rail and power grids.  Just like the Netherlands.  It feels very much like a high tech, high speed, low drag European society.  And its politics and needs reflect that.

Entity 1 has a workable European, centralized future focusing on faddish, but arguably justifiable to some, concepts like sustainability and green engineering.  I say faddish because the concept of efficiency is much older than the marketing spin of the fads, but the population density of the region does justify the collective application of technologies to achieve efficiencies.  Communitarianism is a viable alternative in the region.

Entity 2  is a very different place.

Entity 2 is broadly described by the triangle of Lethbridge, Edmonton and Winnipeg. It is the Prairies.  Not the Prairie Provinces but just the prairies.  It is encompassed by the Canadian Shield, the Rockies and the US. It is the arable part of the Prairie Provinces where settlers settled, farmers farm and ranchers ranch. It is also where Oil and Potash are mined.  It is land that is flat to rolling, that ranges from semi desert to parkland and that is supplied with the Saskatchewan River system but doesn't have much in the way of lakes. 5.8 million Canadians live in Entity 2 or 17% of the population.  The total land area is 1,780,651 520,000 km2.

Entity 2 is 43 12.5 times the size of Entity 1.  The prairies are 12.5 times the size of the St Lawrence Lowlands.  It is 12.5 times the size of the Netherlands.  And Entity 2 has 1/3 of the population of Entity 1.

Where Entity 1 has a population density of 449 Canadians / km2, Entity 2 has a population density of less than 1% 2.5% of that of Entity 1.  It has a population density of 3 11 (three eleven only) Canadians / km2.

It is most decidedly not the Netherlands.

It is often compared to Ukraine, if only because of the large Ukrainian population there.  But that still doesn't do it justice.  

Where Entity 2 covers an area of 1,780,651 520,000 km2  [and] Ukraine only covers an area of 603,628 km2.  Or roughly 1/3 of that of Entity 2.  And while Entity 2 is home to 5.8 million Canadians [while] Ukraine has a population of 45 million.

Ukraine has a population density of 76 / km2 as compared to Entity 2's density of 3 11 and 3 11 only.

Entity 2 is most assuredly not "European".  The solutions that work in Europe, that work in Entity 1 are not obviously transferable to Entity 2.  Centralization and power grids, commuter rail and other services that rely on population density to defray the costs, that are efficient at high population densities, become inefficient at very low population densities.

Entity 1 and 2, as different as they are, account for 80% of Canada's population and 20 6% of the land area.  Entity 1 only accounts for 0.45% of the total land area: one half of 1 per cent - one two hundredth.

The remainder of Canadians live in the other 80 94% of land claimed by Canada.  This other 80 94% is Entity 3.

Within Entity 3 there is a pocket of land out on the West Coast that extends inland along the banks of the Fraser River.  It is dominated by Vancouver. It is a bit larger than Luxembourg in Europe and is home to 2.5 million Canadians or another 7% of the population.  It has an area of 3500 km2, or less than 10% of that of Entity 1 and the Netherlands, and only 0.04% of Canada's land claim, and a population density of 704 km2.  It shares many characteristics with Entity 1, it too feels European in its sensibilities but it suffers from two major challenges.

The first challenge is that it is isolated.  It is set apart.  It is separated from all other Canadians by the Rockies.  And it is divorced from its "European" kin in Entity 1 by the Rockies, the Canadian Shield and by Entity 2.

The second one is a related one.  While it has the local population density to support European style infrastructure it struggles because it doesn't have the European, or even the Entity 1 mass, to supply the tax base to afford those services. 

When we remove Vancouver and the Fraser Valley from Entity 3 and add it together with Entities 1 and 2 we still discover that we have only accounted for 20% of the land area and a bit less than 90% of the population.

Geographically Entity 3 is what defines Canada and yet it is home to only 3.5 million of Canada's 35 million people.  

It covers an area of  7,268,356 8,529,007 km2 of dry(ish) land and 891,163 km2 of fresh water. 

The fresh water area alone is 30% larger than Ukraine.  It is equivalent to one half  greater than the area of Entity 2.

175 205 fiefdoms the size of Entity 1, the size of the Netherlands, could be created from the land in Entity 3.

The land is characterized by pine trees and muskeg in the south, close to Entities 1 and 2, passing through the scrub of the Taiga to the barren lands of the Tundra as you go north through the archipelago of islands in the Arctic Ocean.

This land area, this 80 94% of Canada, includes the 70% of the land area that is completely devoid of roads.  Transport is by water and by air and by specialty bush vehicles.  There is no grid.  There is no rail.   If Entity 1 is European and Entity 2 is not European then Entity 3 is a foreign planet.

The realities of Entity 3 are worlds away from those of Entities 2 and 1.

The solutions that work for Entity 1, and can be stretched to work for Entity 2 (with a struggle) are just totally impractical for Entity 3.

Demographically Entity 3 is dominated by Canada's 1.4 million aboriginal citizens.  This becomes more obvious the further north you go and on the coasts.

The settlers cluster close to Entities 1 and 2 and the Fraser Valley.  The stretch along the shores of the Gulf of St Lawrence.

The rest of the territory is dominated by aboriginal culture.  By 1.4 million people of some 600 nations in 3100 communities.  In an area 175 205 times the size of the Netherlands.

Where the Netherlands are home to 16,847,000 people the equivalent area of land in Canada's north would see 8000 6800 people, living in 17 15 communities, each of  less than 500 people, typically separated from each other by 100 km, with no connecting roads, and representing 3 or 4 different nations, often with different languages.

High speed trains are not going to be the answer.  Nor are subways or light rail transit.  Nor is a power grid with centralized distribution.


These are the different realities the First Ministers were confronting when sat down in Vancouver the other day to discuss climate change and carbon taxes.

While Entity 1 can usefully look to Europe and consider effectively employing European solutions those solutions do not make sense in Entity 2 and 3.

In Entity 2 rugged 4x4s and highways make more sense than High Speed Trains, subways and LRTs.  Arguably there might be a case to be made for a greater reliance on off-the-grid or small scale power generation. Due to the lack of suitable rivers hydro is not an option.  Windpower is a partial, if inelegant solution but it needs back up.  Nuclear power may have some localized applications at points of high consumption - like Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Fort McMurray.  But fossil fuels are still the best solution when it comes to transporting concentrated packages of energy to locations separated by long distances but accessible by road.

Entity 3 requires something else.  If subways don't make sense pickup trucks are barely more sensible.  They are locally useful within the communities but they won't get you from one community to the next.  Entity 3 requires specialized transportation.  It requires cheap air transport - perhaps lighter than air is an option but in the meantime cheap conventional air is a necessity.  It needs boats that can take advantage of the rivers and lakes and salt water straits in the Arctic Archipelago  when the seasons permit and along the east and west coasts. It requires marginal terrain vehicles instead of buses and trucks.  In short: it requires the internal combustion engine powered by fossil fuels.  

Stationary power is another matter.  What ability there is to transport fossil fuels into Entity 3 should be focused on transportation needs.  Energy for homes, for heat, for light, for manufacturing - that type of energy may be able to be provided more cheaply by "green" technologies that by fossil fuels.  Just as alternative solutions might be appropriate to supply clean water and adequate sewage treatment.  In that sense "green" or "sustainable" technologies may provide workable, efficient solutions.

Canada and Canadians, including the native Canadians, need a variety of solutions.  Those solutions will only be found locally.  Not from an office in Ottawa, Toronto or even Calgary.

It is not about saving the planet. It is not about a fervour to do "the right thing".  It is about good, sensible exploitation of the multitude of solutions that are available to us.

And in the meantime we might be able to make a buck selling to folks outside of Canada that want what we have. We might be able to make our claim to the lands that we hold more secure by making our relations with the locals more attractive than the prospects offered by third parties.  And in the meantime we can let the trees and the land eat up the carbon dioxide that we release when we are burning fossil fuels.  In the Netherlands they have to buy carbon dioxide to pump into their green houses to grow orchids.  The don't have trees to do the job "naturally".

And I haven't even mentioned Entity 4. An area equivalent in size to Entity 3 that we also claim.  The salt water and high seas of our Territorial Seas and Economic Exclusion Zone.  An area that is set to grow in size with our UNCLOS claim to the arctic continental shelf.

Canada's reality is not that of the Netherlands.  It is not even that of the St Lawrence Lowlands.

Edit: Numbers revised after I fact checked the area of the prairies.  1.7 million km2 is the total area of the prairie provinces.  520,000 km2 is the area of actual prairies.  The numbers change (and some of the hyperbole).  But the conclusions remain the same.  Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## GAP (4 Mar 2016)

Good article....it puts things into perspective.....


----------



## my72jeep (4 Mar 2016)

Am I missing it or does his break down miss a lot of Canada?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2016)

Jeep, I think I can understand where you are coming from.

In the interests of simplicity I may have done a disservice to those 2 million or so non-aboriginal Canadians that I identified as being part of Entity 3 and then dismissed.

In response to a PM I said this:



> Trimming the Maritimes, the Lac St Jean and Gatineaus, the Kawarthas and Muskokas, and the Okanagan and Shuswap ...[and setting them up as their own separate entity] might make some sense.
> 
> My problem with [that] is that the people in those areas self-identify with the Lowlands or the Prairies and regularly commerce with the Settlers of those areas.
> 
> At the same time they are surrounded by native populations and they share with them, as they move away from the settled areas, the same challenges.  So while they are, demographically distinct from both the settlers of the lowlands and the prairies (and probably share a lot of characteristics with the prairie settlers), from the standpoint of technological challenges  I see them falling into one of the three distinct entities I was identifying, depending on their proximity and proclivities.



Now, if we were to look at the 2,000,000 or so non-aboriginals in Entity 3, those that are not in the St Lawrence lowlands, on the prairies or in the Fraser Valley we would find that the vast majority of them live in the Maritimes and on Newfoundland proper.  The total population of the area is actually 2,292,707 and the reside in an area of 241,276 km2.  That is comparable to the United Kingdom's area of 243,610.  But the UK is home to 63,705,000 which gives them a population density of 264 per km2 compared to a maritime density of 10 per km2.

So the Maritimes, including Newfoundland represents 6% of the Canadian population and just short of 3% of the Canadian land claim.  

From a technological stand point, although there are urban centres, population density and geography convinced me to look at them as having challenges more comparable to Entity 3 than Entity 1.  Although looking at these numbers now perhaps they have more in common with Entity 2, the prairies.

Does that make sense?


----------



## quadrapiper (4 Mar 2016)

While high speed rail certainly isn't an option for much of the country, what about low-speed mixed passenger and freight lines? There's certainly a point geographically where summer transport on the water is the only answer for anything too heavy for aviation: up to that point, though, would rail (especially in those areas where river transport isn't realistic) be worth considering?

Seems to have been neglected, much like the unsexy business of keeping bridges and highways in good shape.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2016)

A more up to date take on "The Nine Nations of North America" is Robert Kaplan's book "An Empire Wilderness". Kaplan sees rings in a more granular perspective, but then again things like Exurbs and urbanization running up river valleys and watersheds wasn't an issue when "Nine Nations" was written.

One thing which I think should be taken into account is not the relative population density, but rather the population nodes and linkages. Edmonton and Calgary are densely urbanized in ways Ontarians would recognize, and the populations of those cities have voted for political parities, economic policies and social organizations distinctly at odds with the rural hinterland of Alberta. OTOH, there is no direct link from Edmonton to either Toronto or Vancouver, so while they share some characteristics, there are still areas of difference as well.

This does tie in with other ideas, for example these new conditions are creating situations which the current political, economic and social structures are ill equipped to handle, and which current political parities have no reasonable answers to. Your map is a compliment to Preston Manning's "The New Canada" or Ibbitson's "The Big Shift", but is still has areas lacking in detail, places where you can write "here be dragons...."


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Mar 2016)

>what about low-speed mixed passenger and freight lines? 

Rail needs volume, which isn't going to exist for services to the hinterlands.

The underlying point is one which has been made repeatedly: Canada is too large for centralized one-size solutions.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jeep, I think I can understand where you are coming from.
> 
> In the interests of simplicity I may have done a disservice to those 2 million or so non-aboriginal Canadians that I identified as being part of Entity 3 and then dismissed.
> 
> ...


You miss like the ont gov the resource rich, people poor area of northern ont.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jeep, I think I can understand where you are coming from.
> 
> In the interests of simplicity I may have done a disservice to those 2 million or so non-aboriginal Canadians that I identified as being part of Entity 3 and then dismissed.
> 
> ...



Stop looking East-West and start looking North-South.  The Atlantic Provinces have far more in common with their New England brethren than they do with the rest of Canada.  Ditto BC with the US West Coast.  

I find this map to be the most fitting:







Any Canadian "nation" is but an extension of its Southern relative.  This excludes Quebec of course, which is its own distinct nation.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2016)

My Entity 3 actually encompasses exactly that region,  just as it includes the interior of BC and the northern parts of the prairie provinces, precisely for the reasons you stated.  The common thread that covers everything from the line Cochrane-Kenora to Alert is lots of resources, few people, predominantly native.

In Ontario the region south of that line, terminating somewhere around the Trent-Severn canal system, is a transitional zone that is like Entity 1 (the European style lowlands) in the south and Entity 3 in the north.

Having lived in that area for a chunk of my life I am reasonably aware of the differences between how the government treats Toronto and the lakeshore, Cottage Country and The North.   

The observation I would make is that the same government that relies on the votes of Toronto and the lakeshore to stay in power, and whose sister government is in power in Quebec and reliant on Montreal votes for power, is now in power in Ottawa.

It is said of the Brits that they make no distinction beyond the Channel. Well, for the current governments of Central Canada I don't think they can see past the treeline.  Their focus is on the next plane out of the country.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> My Entity 3 actually encompasses exactly that region,  just as it includes the interior of BC and the northern parts of the prairie provinces, precisely for the reasons you stated.  The common thread that covers everything from the line Cochrane-Kenora to Alert is lots of resources, few people, predominantly native.
> 
> In Ontario the region south of that line, terminating somewhere around the Trent-Severn canal system, is a transitional zone that is like Entity 1 (the European style lowlands) in the south and Entity 3 in the north.
> 
> ...



Aye and I'd wager that if Quebec were to ever separate, Canada as a state would cease to exist.  The first to go would be the Maritimes who would quickly look South towards New England.  The rest of the country would fall like Dominoes.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Stop looking East-West and start looking North-South.  The Atlantic Provinces have far more in common with their New England brethren than they do with the rest of Canada.  Ditto BC with the US West Coast.
> 
> I find this map to be the most fitting:
> 
> ...



And again we have Joel Garreau.  I fully agree with his views.

What I was attempting to do was further simplify, while focusing on the technological challenges and eliminating the sociological differences.

It doesn't matter whether the folks in the trees speak English, French of Anishiaabe.  Once you run out roads you run into the same problems.  Just like the Dene of the Barrens and the Inuit same similar challenges despite a history that rivals the French and English in Canada.

Technologically I stand by my Entities 1, 2 and 3:  a densely populated zone that feels like Europe where public transit makes sense;  a sparsely populated zone that is served by roads, but most of which are gravel or just cut lines where 4x4s, SUVs and pickups make sense; and the vast majority of the country where transportation requires some very different solutions.

And that transportation phenomenon in Entity 3 plays right into the discussion of the roles of the Rangers, the Reserves and the Regs in the North, the Reaction Units - size, capability and composition (and scalability) - as well as the technologies that are needed.

In terms of Reaction to crises - the primary job of Her Majesty's odd job men in the Canadian Forces - they should be focused on reacting where the people are not.

The south, Entity 1 and Entity 2, they don't need the Forces. It makes for good photo ops when streets need to be shoveled or sand bags need to be filled, but by and large there is enough people, and enough resources, immediately available that the Forces contribution, while welcome, is not critical.  Sending gunners to stack sandbags sends the message that the politicians care.  Full stop.

On the other hand, if you are living in a community of 500 people, in a tinder dry forest and with no roads to permit you to evacuate or get resources into your community in a timely fashion - then a couple of Chinooks full of people would probably be a welcome sight.

And yes, that is a job for the Forces.  You need the logistic skills that permit that type of intervention to support the deployment of the Combat Arms.

That is where the bet has been missed.  You want to know how to increase the defence budget?  Start selling the public on the logistics that you need, that they think you have but that you know you don't.

Edit: and I don't disagree with the dominoes comment.  John A's iron link is rusting away.  Vancouver Seattle.  Calgary Houston.  Halifax Boston.  Toronto and Montreal? New York (and farewell Quebec culture).


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Aye and I'd wager that if Quebec were to ever separate, Canada as a state would cease to exist.  The first to go would be the Maritimes who would quickly look South towards New England.  The rest of the country would fall like Dominoes.



Actually, I think that there would be a long drawn out discourse as to what Quebec could leave with.  Would the parts of Northern Quebec, that were not part of Quebec at Confederation be part and parcel of such a separation?  Would the Eastern Townships be included?  Which (historical) map of Quebec would be the deciding factor as to boundaries?  Would the Cree be given the same rights to separate from a Quebec nation?  Would there be a section that would remain in Canada to ensure a link between the Maritimes and Ontario westward?  

With a "Separation" what part of the National Debt would be transferred to Quebec?  The cut to Transfer Payments?  What about other fiscal concerns and monetary transfers?  What monetary unit would they have to switch to?  Citizenship or Dual Citizenship?  Passports?  What about CAF facilities, personnel and equipment; not to mention all the other Federal institutions and organizations?  There is quite a long list of factors that would have to be addressed.      

People seem to have an impression that such a Separation would be such an easy step to take; Canadian one day and Quebecois the next.    A very simplistic look at a very complex matter.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Mar 2016)

Given that the map of the "yes" vote in the referendum looked a lot like the historical map of "New France", there is a possibility that Canada could continue to exist in any post separation environment.

Quebec itself would rapidly splinter, especially since most people will be very aware that the end game for the PQ is to milk anyone still in Quebec for the benefit of the "pure laine" Quebecois. Creating a transport and energy corridor across the District of Ungava to keep the East-West linkage of Canada after the dust settles should be a priority for whatever Canadian government exists at that time. As a bonus, the St Lawrence Seaway is an international waterway, and the United States will certainly have a lot to say about maintaining  freedom of access and innocent passage, so there will be two potential corridors. This is more a matter of national willpower to make it work, but laziness and inertia could lead to the dissolution of Canada instead.

As for issues like currency, Federal lands and equipment and so on, any Independent Quebec will be holding a very weak hand. Currency is not something we could actually do anything about, but while Quebec could continue to use Canadian dollars (or Euros or USD for that matter), they will have no say in the monetary policy of whatever currency they choose to adopt, if they fail to create their own. Much like Greece on the Euro, unilaterally devaluing the currency to meet domestic political or economic goals will not be an option.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2016)

But you seem to be assuming, Thucydides, that America is "one nation, indivisible."

I doubt American (or British, Canadian, Russian or Spanish) "_*indivisibility*_" just as I doubt American "_*exceptionalism*_."

I find Garreau's notion logical and, I suspect, some variations of it will be attractive to many.


----------



## Lumber (7 Mar 2016)

IMO Quebec would fall apart in a post-separation scenario.

They'd loose their transfer payments.
They'd inherit an appropriate portion of the national debt, and have to pay for it sans transfer payments.
Without the Charter to hold them in check, they'd go power crazy and inact much stricter language laws, much to the furstration of international/English speaking companies, which would stimy business development. 
They might get to keep some of the military bases, but I can almost guarantee Canada would not let them keep any of the expensive equipment, therefore requiring them to spend a not unsubstantial amount of money to re-capitalize its forces.

A little more supositious:
You'd see a significant amount of discord between rural-Quebecois, urban-pro-separation Quebecois and urban-anti-separation Quebecois (Montrèal).
You'd see produly-Canadian businesses across Canada slow-down/reduce their business activities with Quebec out of "spite".

Very supositions: 
The Cree separate from Quebec, invade, and take over. (or maybe just the first part of those three)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Mar 2016)

Parts of the upper Fraser valley are light years apart from Vancouver


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Mar 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Parts of the upper Fraser valley are light years apart from Vancouver



As is most of the geographic 613 area code from Ottawa and Kingston.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Parts of the upper Fraser valley are light years apart from Vancouver



One of the advantages of an itinerant life is that I have had the opportunity to live in places like Peterborough, Aldergrove and Lethbridge (as well as Calgary, Toronto and Indianapolis).

I am well aware of the moat and drawbridge at Port Mann.  And the difference between life in Bowmanville and Buckhorn Lake.

I was particularly trying to make the point about the applicability of technologies across Canada and how the discussion over Carbon, and its solutions, looks very different depending in which part of Canada you live in.

With respect to the Fraser Valley, a constant complaint in Aldergrove was that we were incorporated into the GVRD but at the very edge of the region.  We had gas stations on one side of the street in the GVRD and in Abbotsford on the otherside.  Guess which ones got the local business? 

The GVRD put environmental levies and taxes on gas, on paint, on tires, on houses.  All to subsidize seabuses and skytrains and rage inducing traffic calming measures downtown.  Meanwhile it took my son and his friends over an hour to get downtown for events using public transit, my wife took a similar time by car to get to work on Annacis Island and if I had the misfortune to have an appointment in Vancouver I could count on the same to get across the Port Mann.

Meanwhile I could get to my appointments in Seattle in 2.5 hours, 250 km across an international border.

That is why I suggest that Vancouver dominates the Fraser Valley and imposes its European aspirations despite not having a European wallet.

And it doesn't take long to discover that whereas on the prairies I can reach virtually any point of the 520,000 km2 of the region in a wheeled vehicle capable of surviving rippled gravel roads, in BC and much of the north you are confined to ratlines with great clumps of trees blocking the view in between.

Three entities.  A European metropolis.  A very large field.  And the rest - a mixture of trees, rocks and water (often frozen).


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But you seem to be assuming, Thucydides, that America is "one nation, indivisible."
> 
> I doubt American (or British, Canadian, Russian or Spanish) "_*indivisibility*_" just as I doubt American "_*exceptionalism*_."
> 
> I find Garreau's notion logical and, I suspect, some variations of it will be attractive to many.



The United States is also prone to a lot of stressors (many which Garreau would never have seen when the book first came out), but I suspect that they will hold together much more readily than Canada or a post separation Quebec. An interesting exercise will be to overlay the "Nine Nations" onto the "Red" and "Blue" states. I have read wishful thinking that the US could be rendered along the red/blue divide, but adding overlays like the Nine Nations and exurban pods will change that picture rather radically, I think.


----------



## quadrapiper (7 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> That is why I suggest that Vancouver dominates the Fraser Valley and imposes its European aspirations despite not having a European wallet.


Wonder what the governmental solution for that area might be? 

Geography of the area suggest that everything between Hope and Squamish needs to be on the same page on certain issues (infrastructure, transit & transportation, etc.), but how to get that done without the urban and suburban bloc around City of Vancouver hanging on to all the money?


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2016)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Wonder what the governmental solution for that area might be?
> 
> Geography of the area suggest that everything between Hope and Squamish needs to be on the same page on certain issues (infrastructure, transit & transportation, etc.), but how to get that done without the urban and suburban bloc around City of Vancouver hanging on to all the money?



Make that the urban block.  The suburbs weren't getting much of the gravy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Mar 2016)

My experience in government, is that no matter how carefully you draw a line, it’s always going to cause someone a headache, you can reduce the effect by planning, but you never remove it entirely. Municipal governments are the worst in my opinion, quite happy to meddle in everyone’s business and will happily blame everything on the Province and or Feds.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> With respect to the Fraser Valley, a constant complaint in Aldergrove was that we were incorporated into the GVRD but at the very edge of the region.  We had gas stations on one side of the street in the GVRD and in Abbotsford on the otherside.  Guess which ones got the local business?



This is very much part of Kaplan's observations about the gtrowth of Exurban pods and the "urbanization" of river valleys. This is also evident in many parts of SW Ontario, especially in the "Golden Horseshoe", where the reach of the urban planners goes far afield. Even in my home town of London, the city long ago annexed much of the county of Middlesex (although the primary reason was to trap business and landowners trying to escape city taxes and regulation). As noted, edge effects are always difficult to deal with, and municipal governments here can pass the buck  with the best (although with the Liberals in power at both Queen's Park and Ottawa, this might be a game with diminishing returns).


----------



## quadrapiper (8 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This is very much part of Kaplan's observations about the gtrowth of Exurban pods and the "urbanization" of river valleys. This is also evident in many parts of SW Ontario, especially in the "Golden Horseshoe", where the reach of the urban planners goes far afield. Even in my home town of London, the city long ago annexed much of the county of Middlesex (although the primary reason was to trap business and landowners trying to escape city taxes and regulation). As noted, edge effects are always difficult to deal with, and municipal governments here can pass the buck  with the best (although with the Liberals in power at both Queen's Park and Ottawa, this might be a game with diminishing returns).


Watching growth on Vancouver Island, it almost seems like a revision is needed as far as how city boundaries are set: perhaps expanding city boundaries with the suburban border would encourage better results. Currently, looking at Duncan as an example, you have the City proper, then a great surrounding ring of development that is, functionally, of a single unit with Duncan, but that falls under the Cowichan Valley Regional District.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2016)

I'd be curious to see if the Cowichan Valley Regional District has different taxes and regulations than Duncan, which would explain why people preferr the "ring of development" to the urban centre?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2016)

Or they could just prefer to have some space between them and their neighbours and easy access to both Safeways and the great outdoors.  15 minutes by car either way.


----------



## foresterab (8 Mar 2016)

Chris,

Interesting take on the politics and issues within Canada.  Having lived in mostly northern and rural areas across Canada I would offer a different take:
1) Areas of mainly paved roads with fully developed infrastructure - this is the traditional golden horseshoe area of the St. Lawrence corridor but would also include most of Canada's major centers such as Vancouver or Edmonton.  
2) Areas of paved main corridor but limited infrastructure.  Gravel roads are common - this is the city of Thunder Bay/Prince George/Saskatoon that is surrounded but a primarily rural population and lacks both the infrastructure and population to expand to the level 1 areas.  Despite this local politics and/or provincial politics treat these centers as larger than they are.   
3) Areas with no road or limited road.  You hope roads have gravel.  This is dominated by primarily aboriginal populations and/or single resource dominated towns and access for what many folks consider "necessary" in area 1 communities often involves transitioning multiple zones and cultures within Canada.

Unfortunately for Canada most of our politics are based upon an East West band dominated by highways (historically railways) while local politics are often north/south rural/urban splits.   There are success stories but the successes have usually been driven by local development pushing the agenda (Dawson Creek-Prince George Highway) and/or massive resource finds(i.e. Sudbury)  and/or massive government investment (Alaska Highway/Canol Road).  The trick will be for government to anticipate development and infrastructure corridors while doing the difficult work of involving neighboring jurisdictions to allow grow to match and flow seamlessly - way easier said than done and not always practical in reality (look at the new Windsor, Ont. bridge crossing to Michigan).

Worth a few coffee's discussing anyways.  Thanks for the post and the follow up information in the discussion.
foresterab


----------



## quadrapiper (8 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to see if the Cowichan Valley Regional District has different taxes and regulations than Duncan, which would explain why people preferr the "ring of development" to the urban centre?


Entirely possible - by ring of development, I was referring to the suburban (much of it quite dense) zones immediately abutting the city.

Drifting the thread like a barge off Victoria... doing some poking around, turns out the city looked at expansion ten years ago. Also appears they have a CVRD director.


----------



## Deleted member 84189 (9 Mar 2016)

Indeed, some people get panicked or over-hyped when they think about instant separation the day after a potential winning referendum. As a Quebeccer, I'll try and answer your questions to the best of my ability and with neutrality in mind, as always.

Quebec has a keen interest in Labrador, especially since the border is already contested and Quebec never recognized the Privy Council's decision. Other than that, the geographical status quo would be maintained: the Eastern Townships, even if highly populated by anglophones, remain majoritarily francophone. As for the East-West divide, the separatist government would likely use that as leverage, just like the Saint-Laurent waterway, to force Canada into cooperation. 

As for the debt itself, it is a result of the Canadian Federal Government's decisions, which the Quebec government has no authority over, as such, Quebec is not legally forced to pay any part of it. Take for example, a young adult leaving his parents' house, he is not legally bound to pay his raisers' debt in any way. But for the sake of healthy bilateral relations, let's imagine Quebec accepts to take a part of it, which would likely be between 15 and 25% percent depending on the calculation method (population-based, GDP-based, Spending-based, etc.). But just as in interpersonal debt transfers, it also involves an asset transfer equal in proportional value to the debt percentage transfer. That said, Quebec could just aswell decide to nationalize any non-diplomatic foreign government-held propriety on its territory, such as CFBs, Federal Bridges, etc, without taking any debt. That'd be an ******* move, though, and bad for relations with its second economic partner.

Speaking of economic partnership, Quebec would probably refuse to give Canada (ON) a link to the maritimes, as that would mean cutting off Quebec from its most important economic partner, the US. As for the money, it would probably be a long transfer between the CAD and the "QCP?"(QuebeC Piastre, "piastre" being the most common slang for 1$ in Quebec) over the course of a decade or two. All currently living Quebecers would be granted both citizenships and subsequent generations would receive only the Quebec citizenship after separation has been fully completed (possible delay of 15-25 years). There is no doubt that monetary transfers would be gradually cut off during the separation, both inwards and outwards (respectively 60 and 40 billion, approx) and Quebec would have to make use of its new-found independence and proceed to some financial and structural clean up, (fighting corruption, fiscal evasion) as well as displacing some money from social programs to economic investment to make up for the 20 billion disparity.

Last but not least, Quebec's military, akin to its currency, would probably take decades before obtaining monopoly, as the first few years would probably be comparable to a protectorate (ie; British Dominion of Canada), followed by a strong integration in NORAD, and finally an autonomous self-defense force. Unlikely that it would join NATO, considering Quebeccers are mostly anti-militaristic (frig me...), lean rather in favour of Russia, and in disfavour of Turkey.

Oh, and the federal institutions in Quebec are manned by... Quebeccers. So the services would just be transferred to the Quebec government and it probably wouldn't affect much.

In any case, if Quebec were to seceed and the other Canadian nations to follow suit, I believe Canada would remain a strong historico-cultural heritage uniting "ex-canadians", akin to say, a German and a Belgian's attachment to Europe.


Inb4: I am not in favour of any political action, I simply observe and analyze. That's what I do.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Mar 2016)

foresterab said:
			
		

> Chris,
> 
> Interesting take on the politics and issues within Canada.  Having lived in mostly northern and rural areas across Canada I would offer a different take:
> 1) Areas of mainly paved roads with fully developed infrastructure - this is the traditional golden horseshoe area of the St. Lawrence corridor but would also include most of Canada's major centers such as Vancouver or Edmonton.
> ...



Yes, recently the BC gov completed the NW transmission line up towards Dease lake, but halted it before it got to any of the towns (Iskut/Dease lake) It's mainly there to support Resource extraction. One of the mining companies have offered to push it further if they build their mine. I would like to see the WAC Bennett proposed rail line finished to Dease lake and long term plan to push rail into the Yukon eventually to Whitehorse, and then reconnect the Yukon Pass line to Whitehorse as well (different gauge) Continue to improve the roads North so they can be year round and start consider more rail routes as well. Maybe Ft Nelson- Ft Simpson then to Coppermine


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2016)

My concern with that strategy Colin, is that it still leaves you with some very thing tendrils creating very narrow corridors with very little traffic.   A network, a grid is necessary so that there are many mutually supporting paths.

If you take a look at the great 19th century railroads -  Canadian Pacific, Trans-Siberian, Cape-Cairo, - even the successful ones didn't create an effect more than a few miles on either side of the tracks.

The prairies grew by a combination of gridlines and sidelines with the rail lines connecting to a grain elevator every 8 miles, the distance a horse-drawn wagon could cover in a day.  The terrain permitted that amount of rail to be laid easily and cheaply.   But it hasn't been supportable.  Even the road network that has replaced it is difficult to sustain, with something like 75% of the roads out here being gravel roads and Saskatchewan struggling to be able to keep their paved roads intact because of the low population density.

I am convinced that Canada, like Africa and much of northern Asia, and probably South America needs a different transportation paradigm - one that is compatible with low population densities.  One that eschews high cost infrastructure.  The  Persians and the Romans introduced the Highway system.  Robert Stephenson merely replaced oxen with steam.

We need transportation that does not require the creation and maintenance of permanent rights of way.  Something more akin to the nomad's horse than the farmer's ox cart.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Mar 2016)

As for the North, there are strategic requirements and once you place infrastructure, things can happen. A road gives you great flexibility both in usage and placements, but higher operating costs for users and maintainers. Rail allows the cheap movement of bulk resources with limited flexibility. Powerlines provide connection and reduce the need to transport significant quantities of fuels. Power lines can be paired with phone/fiberoptics (which can also be paired with rail and road). Airports and air navigation system give point interconnection, but with limitations. Riverene access has lower costs, but does need the right geographic features and enough traffic to maintain viability. 

It is the role of government to look ahead and conduct these large infrastructure projects that can move the country forward. Beyond these massive projects other important ones are improving telecommunications in the North  (North of the 52nd Parallel) and improving road access to large communities like Prince George, both of these to make them more attractive and draw the population North. I would also offer very lucrative tax rates and such for Greenhouses running on NG further north where road and gas access is available.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2016)

For Canada's underpopulated regions, this is Westjet/bush plane country (Westjet to the hubs, bush planes radiating out to the dispersed communities.

This makes for a negative feedback loop, since logistics are more difficult and general cost of living and doing business become higher as well. This means fewer people will want to move there (especially the Nintendo nation. What _did_ people do before WiFi and 3G networks?). Even comms is more difficult, especially since people want to be connected like the South Koreans with crazy fast download speeds rather than wait for (and pay for) satelite uplinks or HF radio.

There have been some ideas on futurist sites like NextBigFuture which suggest technologies that would allow for dispersed and distributed living at costs an order of magnitude below what we have today, but most of that is either theoretical or in advanced prototyping. Even if in full prodution, it would benefit people in the urbanized regions to an equal or greater degree, leaving everyone at the same levels of competative (dis)advantage.


----------



## GR66 (9 Mar 2016)

Realistically the only viable driver for expanded development of the "there be Dragons" regions of Canada is resource extraction.  If it's economically viable for companies to extract X, Y or Z from an undeveloped region they will bring the people in (or hire and train locals) to do so.  

The government could try to tilt the balance on viability by providing subsidies or assisting in building infrastructure to support the extraction but you risk failure if the subsidies aren't maintained to keep it viable.  

Get enough people working in an area extracting resources and support industries will become viable and eventually you'll have enough people to support and justify more infrastructure.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Mar 2016)

Pretty much the history of Canada, actually the North parts of BC, both coastal and inland used to be much more populated, towns of 3,000 people have withered and died. Bella Coola used to be the main food supplier for the Yukon Gold rush, now most of those farms are sliding back to forest. Each Province and Territories should sit down and discuss with it’s stakeholders, where the majority of invest and infrastructure should be spent outside of existing metropolitan areas. With the goals of making the North more livable and self-sustaining and open up areas of economic interests. The Feds can layout what Terms of References they use to consider such projects. Each Province submits and the Feds choose the projects that fit the ToR’s and the most good for Canada in the long run. Engage major parties in the discussion so funding does not fade every election.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Mar 2016)

There are really only two reasons to develop things in the hinterlands.
1) To get exports to market.
2) To provide the needs of the urban populations.

Money spent in the hinterlands isn't spent for the benefit of the locals; it is spent for the benefit of trade and of the people who live in high-density communities.  When urbanites complain about disproportionate public spending in areas of low and very low population density, they are complaining about spending on themselves - but they are mostly unaware of it.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2016)

To put the point more plainly:







And The North starts as 55 N west of the Lakehead and at 49 N east of the Lakehead.  You can squeeze another two Europes in there and still not find a million Canadians.

5 diamond mines in an area the size of Switzerland in the Barren Lands and nobody home - and no permanent land links of any sort.

3000 km of power lines to feed a single mine isn't going to get the job done.  A C17 full of diesel and a generator would make more sense.  It would bring in about 3000 GJ or 900,000 kWh of energy.


----------



## foresterab (9 Mar 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There are really only two reasons to develop things in the hinterlands.
> 1) To get exports to market.
> 2) To provide the needs of the urban populations.
> 
> Money spent in the hinterlands isn't spent for the benefit of the locals; it is spent for the benefit of trade and of the people who live in high-density communities.  When urbanites complain about disproportionate public spending in areas of low and very low population density, they are complaining about spending on themselves - but they are mostly unaware of it.



There is always the reverse economic pressures that get applied too though.   When living in NE BC (where Natural Gas $$ funded much of the Vancouver Olympic building) the local municipalities basically had to threaten to shut down the development before some monies were returned north - within a couple of years there was a lot more paved roads all of a sudden.   Same deal in Alberta with the twinning of highway 63 to Fort McMurray...

Unfortunately most people don't want to address the ripple effects of what disproportionate charges to rural/remote areas mean.  Here locally gas is usually 10 cents more a litre than Edmonton which is 2 hours away...so all the local resource industries have to add a premium to rates to recover costs.   But you go to Calgary - 3 hours away...the same shipping cost is usually around +2 cents/L.   There is some economies for tanker trucks going to a major center...but not that much given the number of gas stations that all use the same shipping company for refills.

It's for that reason the inter-provincial trade barriers are so key to break down in both regulations and certifications - each transfer of resource (people/monies/product) east west is a potential multiplication of wasted efforts.  Good news is it's slowly occurring, sector by sector at least in the west/northern territories as the issues get exposed and addressed (Can't speak to eastern Canada due to how long it's been since I lived there).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Mar 2016)

I see the Real Estate crunch in Vancouver as sign and opportunity for the provincial government to start pushing to make other population centres more attractive. The Feds can help more northern communities upgrade basic infrastructure like sewage, power, telecommunications. Fro Transportation focus on major roads and rail. In the far North right now the major effect will need better airports and ports. we really do need more land routes up there. Proper infrastructure will mean cheaper and more reliable supply of goods. I was hoping this decade would be the one for mini-nuclear plants like the one proposed by Toshiba, but the accident in Japan has pushed that back by a least another decade. The North needs more decent paying and steady jobs, those jobs will support small businesses in the communities which will help with the social issues.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2016)

One potential "Made in Canada" solution is a hybrid airship proposed by "SolarShip": https://www.solarship.com/

Earlier iterations of the site had made claims that the smaller airships could potentially land on airstrips of only 100m length, and the use of aerostatic lift (helium) to take much of the weight of the airframe allowed for much smaller engines to be used. Although the company advertises the idea of coating the upper portion of the airship with solar cells and running electric motors to turn the props, in reality even small diesel engines could be substituted (small turboprops for the largest one with a C-130 sized payload). These would be capable of acting as "bush planes" but at lower cost.

This is one example of potential "order of magnitude" cost savers for dispersed northern and interior communities.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Mar 2016)

Airship and extreme weather have a bad history and I am not sure that equation has changed as much as they think it has.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2016)

Agreed on the weather sensitivities.

But suppose you weren't anal about time tables and seasonal/monthly deliveries were considered.  A day or a week this way or that may not be the end of the world.

Colonies were built on the basis of most of the ships showing up eventually.  Just-In-Time is pretty much a mug's game when you can see the end of the universe from where you are.

But, by exploiting seasonality you can deliver bulk by water in the summer and overland in the winter (with the right transport - preferably something that exerts less ground pressure than an a walking person).


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2016)

These guys may be the goto guys for northern logistics - everything old is new again.

http://www.northwest.ca/annualreviews/2014/overview/nwc-at-a-glance

The Northwest Company.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Agreed on the weather sensitivities.
> 
> But suppose you weren't anal about time tables and seasonal/monthly deliveries were considered.  A day or a week this way or that may not be the end of the world.
> 
> ...



People who grew up in the North would do fine, the exiled Southerners not so much.As far as timings go. Snow train have been done and generally fell out of fashion. Ordering up non-perishable bulk goods once a year is fine, but after that your confined to what an aircraft can bring in. We used to sell pop off the Icebreakers at Southerner prices wherever we dropped the hook, even with a cap of 10% above costs, our canteen made a killing as Inuit would load up to the point we had to ration a bit to ensure the communities at the far end of our trip could buy something.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> People who grew up in the North would do fine, *the exiled Southerners not so much*.....



In the immortal words of Wilf Carter: You'll get used to it!  [


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Mar 2016)

Well we soon have a year round road to Tuk and what we need now is a decent Port there, which would also mean some dredging as well. Next I would push a road from the Invuik-Ft Simpson Hwy to Great bear lake (maybe to Deline?) and then another road from the lake to Coppermine. you can barge across the lake and also supply places like Port Radium.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> People who grew up in the North would do fine, the exiled Southerners not so much.As far as timings go. Snow train have been done and generally fell out of fashion. Ordering up non-perishable bulk goods once a year is fine, but after that your confined to what an aircraft can bring in. We used to sell pop off the Icebreakers at Southerner prices wherever we dropped the hook, even with a cap of 10% above costs, our canteen made a killing as Inuit would load up to the point we had to ration a bit to ensure the communities at the far end of our trip could buy something.



So what is needed is a way to have somewhat more frequent trips (without breaking the bank) but still deliver enough of a load that being a few days late isn't going to casue everyone to starve becasue they ate the last load. A rugged bush plane that is big enough to carry a fully loaded cargo container provides the frequency and required load, but will be pretty expensive to operate. Without roads or rail, it is difficult to move people and supplies around, and relying on water transport requires that you have navigable rivers and shorelines. A difficult problem


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2016)

You could also subsidize locally grown produce in greenhouses.  It would be expensive but so is shipping stuff in - and you are talking about communities ranging in size from 100 to 1000 people.

The cost of securing the north paid not in bullets but in full bellies.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You could also subsidize locally grown produce in greenhouses.  It would be expensive but so is shipping stuff in - and you are talking about communities ranging in size from 100 to 1000 people.
> 
> The cost of securing the north paid not in bullets but in full bellies.



I fully agree, first I would push building greenhouses near Natural Gas supplies, I did review a project near Fort St John that was going to generate power from NG and the waste heat was going into greenhouses to grow vegs and fruit. These project while not turning a profit for quite awhile can provide jobs, food, experience, infrastructure, all which will make the North more self-sustaining. The skills people learn make it easier for them to exploit other opportunities.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Mar 2016)

in the vein we are talking about http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/taltson-hydro-expansion-saskatchewan-1.3487488


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2016)

I prefer your natural gas solution:

Gas = Heat + Light + Carbon Dioxide = 







Hydro = Heat + Light .................................................


Say, do you think some of that Carbon Dioxide stuff would do any good for wheat and trees?




> For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.
> 
> Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.
> 
> Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.



http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2016)

Getting about with bush planes will mean a new generation of aircraft. Of course, it should be equally possible to build "old" aircraft with modern materials and manufacturing technologies to make them lighter and cheaper to operate. Seaplanes might also be coinsidered, since we do have a lot of water and waterways that can be exploited without having to build lots of infrastructure:


----------



## foresterab (13 Mar 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I fully agree, first I would push building greenhouses near Natural Gas supplies, I did review a project near Fort St John that was going to generate power from NG and the waste heat was going into greenhouses to grow vegs and fruit. These project while not turning a profit for quite awhile can provide jobs, food, experience, infrastructure, all which will make the North more self-sustaining. The skills people learn make it easier for them to exploit other opportunities.



Many of the southern Yukon and NWT communities used to have large gardens farming primarily root crops (potatoes/carrots etc.) with the years crop stored in root cellars.   With changes to house designs the root cellars aren't there any more making it tough to store food and increasing reliance upon the supermarkets.

In parts of Scandinavia small co-generation plants are run usually off of wood biomass.  While much of the northern forest lands are not considered appropriate for sawlogs you could harvest trees for power near the community with the following benefits:
1) a couple of jobs in the harvesting/log haul side of things.  
2) a skilled job(s) with the power plant keeping operations going.  This could also be tied to water treatment plants with a power engineer type control officer.
3) local planning and input into resource management on the harvesting = better background when dealing with resource development nearby.  Land reclamation experience (reforestation/clean-up etc.).
4) plants can be developed for multiple fuel feeds.  Many European plants have up to 4 feeds for Natural Gas/Oil/Wood Pellets/Coal with the ability to mix and match depending upon local supply and cost. 
-One concern I've heard with alternative energy sources in the north is reliability.  This allows for a tank of fuel oil to be present as a back up in case needed.
-key maintenance work is specialized and will most likely require specialist teams coming in annually/biannually but it's a start on skilled work up north.
5) because plants can be built where the people are in many cases minimal power infrastructure is required.   Minimal transmission power loss due to shipping power long distances = smaller plants needed

While power plants are an expensive (i.e. need subsidies to work) greenhouses are simpler and there have been some attempts at trying to increase the amount of food being grown often through agencies such as food banks.   These to my mind are high reward, low risk investments in the north as a community greenhouse, growing the crops the local residents want, has immense value in health, self esteem, and economic savings.   Just need the investment money to set them up in the first place.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Mar 2016)

If the Liberals were to throw money at greenhouses in northern communities, that is one infrastructure project that I could get behind.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Mar 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If the Liberals were to throw money at greenhouses in northern communities, that is one infrastructure project that I could get behind.



Indeed; and a very sensible endeavor should it be brought into fruition.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2016)

How many Liberal voters live up there? That will be the metric which that idea lives or dies on.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Mar 2016)

Maximum 30,000 or so.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Getting about with bush planes will mean a new generation of aircraft. Of course, it should be equally possible to build "old" aircraft with modern materials and manufacturing technologies to make them lighter and cheaper to operate. Seaplanes might also be coinsidered, since we do have a lot of water and waterways that can be exploited without having to build lots of infrastructure:



There is a healthy industry of building rather newish planes around old data plates. Helping Viking recreate a new Beaver and Single Otter, also finding a way to bring the price of a pair of floats down would help, tax credits for having floats would help as well. I love flying boats, but they don't seem to get much use these days.


----------



## my72jeep (15 Mar 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If the Liberals were to throw money at greenhouses in northern communities, that is one infrastructure project that I could get behind.


Sorry but if the Liberals put green houses anywhere do you realy thing they would be for growing food?


----------

