Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Kirkhill]

The problem with land is that it is a finite resource. The amount we have that is desirable and available has been shrinking more and move over the past 50 or so years.

Scarcity = value. We aren't creating more desirable and available land due to stuff like the Greenbelt or other environmental things we know aren't the done thing anymore (Ducks Unlimited would have you hung drawn and quartered for suggesting draining a marsh to build a subdivision).

Until we reassess value on density, the problem will just get worse.

In every country but Canada that is true.

Take another look at the population density map @Bread Guy posted and tell me we have a land shortage.

 

[ArmyRick]

I think the writing is on the wall that PMMC is cut from the same cloth as St. Laurent, Martin, and Pearson; less from the Chretien, Trudeau, and Trudeau kind.

St Laurent, Martin and Pearson are MY kind of Liberals.

St Laurent, had a lot of stuff moving industrially and was the PM when the Arrow came on (I know this is a huge debate)

Pearson, the man who kept us out of the Vietnam war (A quagmire that I am not sure was worth the cost in blood)

Martin, A man who could balance budgets and was starting to steer the ship in the right direction (I was sooooo close to voting for his brand of Liberals in 2004 and in 2006, it was some of his staffers and Carolyn Parrish that turned me right off the Liberals)

 

[Kirkhill]

Valuable points. I like to add to it, some observations.
-My wife found some properties (1/8 to 1/3 acre size) that were selling for DIRT cheap ($180-$300,000) within 5 hours of where we live. They aren't selling. Why? All three properties have dilapidated and run down houses (one of these properties the house is barely standing after a fire), they are near NOWHERE (some people like the quiet of the backwoods but yeah, maybe a limit to most), proximity to towns, schools, police, fire, hospitals becomes a factor as well. Its not necessarily the land that is valuable. An empty 1/4 acre lot is worth so much, build a beautiful 4 bed room excellent house and suddenly its value sky rocket. Assuming the location is reasonable.
-Within Canada, although there is lots and lots of land, not very much of it can be developed. If you want to build whole new communities in far northern areas you run into challenges such as establishing physical infrastructure (Roads, sewers, bridges, etc), economic conditions (no one is going to commute 12 hours for a job), social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, police, etc) and ENERGY sources (for electricity production) which basically means coal or nuclear or gas, lets face the facts Solar and windmills are pipedream failures.

This really stupid Liberal failure DOESN'T work. I would go so far as saying immigration needs to be choked right off altogether (or no more than say 50,000 immigrants qualify only), NO MORE refugees or asylum seekers (too bad, tough kitty) and halt foreign students, zippo, nadda. I realize they dump a bunch of foreign cash into Canada (a good thing) but housing is beyond a royal mess. As well doctors available, crime rates, etc.

I am waiting for some Liberal heads to explode or explain away how everything is not the Liberals fault or its "just not understood"

Bottom line, we do have finite amount of land, end story. People becoming adults or arriving here need jobs (and lets face it, government jobs are maxed out, and beyond). We need to stop half assing these natural resource production/extraction/refining and go ALL IN. That means Uncle Mark has to back stab a few of the old Trudeau crowd sooner rather than later. Bill C5, with Conservative cooperation gave Uncle Mark a big gift (He doesn't have to repeal Bill C69 and embarrass the Liberals but he can still get things done in "national interest")

This all requires a holistic approach to governance (I swear our federal government still operates in isolated silos with each ministry).

So what you are saying is that nobody is willing to be a homesteader.

The Peace River district was settled by Dominion Lands Act settlers as recently as the 1930s.

 

[ArmyRick]

So what you are saying is that nobody is willing to be a homesteader.

You said it, let me run with it. I have TONS of experience with it.

My wife and I choose to be farmers (specifically regenerative farmers using Savory's holistic management), we wanted to be (and we are) COMMERCIAL beef and lamb (and previously pork) farmers.

Homesteaders. This has soooo many views by so many people, its unbelievable.

We know many "homesteaders" who came from the GTA or another major urban area who buy a 1-5 acre property up here, get chickens (they all start with chickens), maybe get a goat or a few sheep, establish a nice large garden for "food independence" . They try cutting their own wood, managing their own land, etc.

Many times, my wife and I end up taking their chickens for free (They realize how tough, expensive and predators ruin the day), or we help them sell their goat or rescue their cow. A long list.

I know of one family where they have gone full blown homestead except the town is rightfully getting involved (They have no road access to their own built house). Not too mention, they have had problems with their bull (They have or had 3 cattle) and were begging us to take him (IF we don't kill him, they were vegetarians). I told them no. Any animal I take on, I reserve the right to kill it for its own well being, our meat needs or others safety.

Anyways, having dealt a lot with this mess, believe me, a lot of "well meaning, well intended" people are more than willing to try, not many will do it without going broke and/or having many other issues come up.

 

[Kirkhill]

You said it, let me run with it. I have TONS of experience with it.

My wife and I choose to be farmers (specifically regenerative farmers using Savory's holistic management), we wanted to be (and we are) COMMERCIAL beef and lamb (and previously pork) farmers.

Homesteaders. This has soooo many views by so many people, its unbelievable.

We know many "homesteaders" who came from the GTA or another major urban area who buy a 1-5 acre property up here, get chickens (they all start with chickens), maybe get a goat or a few sheep, establish a nice large garden for "food independence" . They try cutting their own wood, managing their own land, etc.

Many times, my wife and I end up taking their chickens for free (They realize how tough, expensive and predators ruin the day), or we help them sell their goat or rescue their cow. A long list.

I know of one family where they have gone full blown homestead except the town is rightfully getting involved (They have no road access to their own built house). Not too mention, they have had problems with their bull (They have or had 3 cattle) and were begging us to take him (IF we don't kill him, they were vegetarians). I told them no. Any animal I take on, I reserve the right to kill it for its own well being, our meat needs or others safety.

Anyways, having dealt a lot with this mess, believe me, a lot of "well meaning, well intended" people are more than willing to try, not many will do it without going broke and/or having many other issues come up.

160 acres was the original Dominion land grant and most of those settlers ended up selling their land to their neighbours or just abandoning it outright before they moved to town and got a job at the elevator or hotel.

160 acres is a quarter section. These days, around here, that constitutes a single irrigated field with one pivot. There are some 1 section pivots.

There are 36 sections to the township. Some of our family farmers, especially in Saskatchewan, are closing in on operating a whole township themselves. More than 10 sections is not uncommon.

You are right about the life of the homesteader not being that of Little House on the Prairie. But all those failed homesteaders also contributed to the development and to the establishment of rural Canada. They still do, even if they have moved to larger small towns.

 

[The Bread Guy]

In every country but Canada that is true.

Take another look at the population density map @Bread Guy posted and tell me we have a land shortage.

Available land =/= easily/affordably developable land, though.

 

[ArmyRick]

160 acres was the original Dominion land grant and most of those settlers ended up selling their land to their neighbours or just abandoning it outright before they moved to town and got a job at the elevator or hotel.

160 acres is a quarter section. These days, around here, that constitutes a single irrigated field with one pivot. There are some 1 section pivots.

There are 36 sections to the township. Some of our family farmers, especially in Saskatchewan, are closing in on operating a whole township themselves. More than 10 sections is not uncommon.

You are right about the life of the homesteader not being that of Little House on the Prairie. But all those failed homesteaders also contributed to the development and to the establishment of rural Canada. They still do, even if they have moved to larger small towns.

One thing homesteading or farming or rural living really does is it gets the priorities straight for LIFE
-Shelter (Not an option)
-Potable water (Not an option)
-Clothing (Not an option)
-Energy source for heat and ideally usage (electricity, wood burning)
-Food production (Can be option if you can still afford the grocery store)

Now take NEEDS and get our nation, we must produce this and make it available for all 41,000,000 Canadians and it should really start to wake people up to what we need not want.

 

[Kirkhill]

Available land =/= easily/affordably developable land, though.

Was it any more easily/affordably developable in 1867 though? Or even in 1767?

Admittedly the delta between lamplit, horse-drawn city life and lamplit, horse-drawn rural life might have been different But these days your truck takes you farther and your generator keeps the computer on and the microwave working.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'll throw in one more necessity.

An outhouse/cesspit.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada has approximately 429,355 square kilometers of arable land. This represents about 4.4% of Canada's total land area. Arable land is defined as land suitable for growing crops.

That translates to 106,095,931 acres of farm land, and half of that is in the hands of 5200 families.

On the other hand 9,500,000 km2 of land, or 95% of the land is not useful farmland. It won't support corn, squash and beans.

It does support places like Quebec City, Ottawa, Kingston, Peterborough and Barrie. North Bay, the Sault and Thunder Bay. Places on the fringes where the land is not notably farm friendly.

Oslo and Stockholm are also not notably farm friendly. But they seem to make a living.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Invisible College

This has been the source of all sorts of conspiracy theories. It involved people who became associated with the Royal Society of 1660. Robert Boyle, Christopher Wren, Isaac Newton.

The phrase was actually coined about 1640 by a chap name of Ashmole, later known for the museum that he donated to Oxford in 1677, the Ashmolean.

He used it in a letter to a correspondent whose name escapes me. The fact that it was used in a letter is significant. The Royal Mail connecting all parts of Britain was opened to the public in 1635 to make a shilling for the King who was always short of the ready. This meant that the Colleges of Oxford could communicate with the Colleges of Cambridge. They could also communicate with people that weren't at any College.

That network created its own virtual college, an invisible college.

...

Why this wander?

Because I am struck by the conversation that we are having between Lethbridge and southern Ontario, Ottawa and Montreal, Halifax and Esquimalt (and Toronto). In real time.

I reckon that Ashmole might consider this to be one of his invisible colleges.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Was it any more easily/affordably developable in 1867 though? Or even in 1767?

Admittedly the delta between lamplit, horse-drawn city life and lamplit, horse-drawn rural life might have been different But these days your truck takes you farther and your generator keeps the computer on and the microwave working.

If enough people wanted to spend the extra money to build in the Boreal bits of the Canadian Shield, and provinces were willing to build roads to the remote bits, yeah, they’d have houses there. That’s how the market’s supposed to work, no?

 

[lenaitch]

If Canada was a nation of 41Mn homesteaders or subsistence farmers, we wouldn't have much of an economy. Everybody producing just enough for their own needs. Who pays for the roads, schools and hospitals?

As far back as Diefenbaker there was a dream of populating the north. None have taken hold. Agriculture is a sustainable, land-based industry, but for it have a large-scale economic impact, it has to be done at scale, because that's what the competition is doing. Forestry and mining are fine - until the resource runs out; then people leave.

People want to develop the far north. Based on what? Certainly, there is mining potential, but they run out. Does anyone think a community next to a mine will continue to exist after the mine closes. At least in the south, when a plant closes many can commute to a new employer. And the people who have called the north home for a couple of millennia might want a say on how it managed.

 

[Kirkhill]

If enough people wanted to spend the extra money to build in the Boreal bits of the Canadian Shield, and provinces were willing to build roads to the remote bits, yeah, they’d have houses there. That’s how the market’s supposed to work, no?

It is.

If Canada was a nation of 41Mn homesteaders or subsistence farmers, we wouldn't have much of an economy. Everybody producing just enough for their own needs. Who pays for the roads, schools and hospitals?

As far back as Diefenbaker there was a dream of populating the north. None have taken hold. Agriculture is a sustainable, land-based industry, but for it have a large-scale economic impact, it has to be done at scale, because that's what the competition is doing. Forestry and mining are fine - until the resource runs out; then people leave.

People want to develop the far north. Based on what? Certainly, there is mining potential, but they run out. Does anyone think a community next to a mine will continue to exist after the mine closes. At least in the south, when a plant closes many can commute to a new employer. And the people who have called the north home for a couple of millennia might want a say on how it managed.

I assume it is a given that the locals will be making the call.

They have a thousand year history of trade with the Europeans to acquire things they don't have.

Patently, currently, they want warmth, light, hot and cold running water, potable water, sewage and waste disposal, communications, computers, vehicles, doctors, peace, order and good government .... all the appurtenances of modern life. And they are coming to the realisation we value stuff that they have. A couple of big holes in the ground are worth it if it means all the stuff I listed above.

And even if the hole goes dry at least they are left with infrastructure that will improve the lives of the locals even after the mines and mills shut down.

If we value what is in the ground, or on the land, enough then we will pay to access it.

If we install a 5MWe reactor to pwer a project with a 10 year profitable life then the locals are left with another 20 plus years of useful energy and access to the outside world.

 

[brihard]

If Canada was a nation of 41Mn homesteaders or subsistence farmers, we wouldn't have much of an economy. Everybody producing just enough for their own needs. Who pays for the roads, schools and hospitals?

As far back as Diefenbaker there was a dream of populating the north. None have taken hold. Agriculture is a sustainable, land-based industry, but for it have a large-scale economic impact, it has to be done at scale, because that's what the competition is doing. Forestry and mining are fine - until the resource runs out; then people leave.

People want to develop the far north. Based on what? Certainly, there is mining potential, but they run out. Does anyone think a community next to a mine will continue to exist after the mine closes. At least in the south, when a plant closes many can commute to a new employer. And the people who have called the north home for a couple of millennia might want a say on how it managed.

Yup…You need a sustainable economy to grow and sustain a local or regional population. Sustainable agriculture works across the arable parts of the south; you could grow wheat a hundred years ago, you can grow it today, you’ll be able to grow it a hundred years from now. A predictable degree of human population will be needed for and sustained by that. There’s not one factory or mine (or CFB) that, if it closes, will disappear as an economic downturn more of gravity for the region.

Start moving north, out of the arable belt, and you’d better have something like a railway terminal, or a regional administrative/services/retail c Notre if you want to keep a population. A rare once in a while you might have a significant boost from tourism, but there’s a very finite demand for that.

In order to establish and grow settlements, people need to have a reason to go somewhere, and then that somewhere needs to be able to offer enough that the opportunity cost of staying is lower than the cost to leave for better opportunity. We can built mines in the Ring of Fire, but a mine no longer a town makes in this era of work camps and fly in / fly out.

It’s not a game of Sim City; we can’t cause town and then cities to pop up out of bare earth just because the space is there.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yup…You need a sustainable economy to grow and sustain a local or regional population. Sustainable agriculture works across the arable parts of the south; you could grow wheat a hundred years ago, you can grow it today, you’ll be able to grow it a hundred years from now. A predictable degree of human population will be needed for and sustained by that. There’s not one factory or mine (or CFB) that, if it closes, will disappear as an economic downturn more of gravity for the region.

Start moving north, out of the arable belt, and you’d better have something like a railway terminal, or a regional administrative/services/retail c Notre if you want to keep a population. A rare once in a while you might have a significant boost from tourism, but there’s a very finite demand for that.

In order to establish and grow settlements, people need to have a reason to go somewhere, and then that somewhere needs to be able to offer enough that the opportunity cost of staying is lower than the cost to leave for better opportunity. We can built mines in the Ring of Fire, but a mine no longer a town makes in this era of work camps and fly in / fly out.

It’s not a game of Sim City; we can’t cause town and then cities to pop up out of bare earth just because the space is there.

But if people in the area see a need to gather then they will. The need can be a trade opportunity, a factory or just a pleasant place to live.

People cluster when it is to their advantage. Hunter gatherers have been clustering around trading posts and creating cities for a long time. Many cities have cycled from zero to megacity and back again numerous times.

Cobalt and Cochrane still exist. In fact those old cobalt mines are beong redeveloped due to changing markets.

 

[YZT580]

You said it, let me run with it. I have TONS of experience with it.

My wife and I choose to be farmers (specifically regenerative farmers using Savory's holistic management), we wanted to be (and we are) COMMERCIAL beef and lamb (and previously pork) farmers.

Homesteaders. This has soooo many views by so many people, its unbelievable.

We know many "homesteaders" who came from the GTA or another major urban area who buy a 1-5 acre property up here, get chickens (they all start with chickens), maybe get a goat or a few sheep, establish a nice large garden for "food independence" . They try cutting their own wood, managing their own land, etc.

Many times, my wife and I end up taking their chickens for free (They realize how tough, expensive and predators ruin the day), or we help them sell their goat or rescue their cow. A long list.

I know of one family where they have gone full blown homestead except the town is rightfully getting involved (They have no road access to their own built house). Not too mention, they have had problems with their bull (They have or had 3 cattle) and were begging us to take him (IF we don't kill him, they were vegetarians). I told them no. Any animal I take on, I reserve the right to kill it for its own well being, our meat needs or others safety.

Anyways, having dealt a lot with this mess, believe me, a lot of "well meaning, well intended" people are more than willing to try, not many will do it without going broke and/or having many other issues come up.

anyone thinking of going that route should pay close attention to Wingfield farms (7 plays). Canadian version of Greenacres but much better

 

[ArmyRick]

But if people in the area see a need to gather then they will. The need can be a trade opportunity, a factory or just a pleasant place to live.

Very valid point. It also helps to try and open up more than one resource. Find a new mine sight, maybe cut some trees as well (low scale logging), add in a few farms to help sustain community (STOP thinking cash crops, you can raise beef and sheep in every province and territory), if you have some beautiful lakes, add in a fishing lodge and some big tourist bucks, etc.

 

[brihard]

But if people in the area see a need to gather then they will. The need can be a trade opportunity, a factory or just a pleasant place to live.

People cluster when it is to their advantage. Hunter gatherers have been clustering around trading posts and creating cities for a long time. Many cities have cycled from zero to megacity and back again numerous times.

Cobalt and Cochrane still exist. In fact those old cobalt mines are beong redeveloped due to changing markets.

Sure. But like I mentioned above, it’s no longer necessary to build a town and all its infrastructure around a mine. Fly in/fly out, and while ‘in’ living in comfortable but non-permanent work camps that are set up for people working a long stretch of straight shifts, with relatively little need to fill time outside of work, eat and sleep. Then they fly back to the city (and maybe the family) for the weeks off. Hell, medical and even police personnel are shifting to this same model for some remote communities.

It can’t be assumed as a given anymore that a resource extraction or manufacturing site will necessarily result in a permanent settlement.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sure. But like I mentioned above, it’s no longer necessary to build a town and all its infrastructure around a mine. Fly in/fly out, and while ‘in’ living in comfortable but non-permanent work camps that are set up for people working a long stretch of straight shifts, with relatively little need to fill time outside of work, eat and sleep. Then they fly back to the city (and maybe the family) for the weeks off. Hell, medical and even police personnel are shifting to this same model for some remote communities.

It can’t be assumed as a given anymore that a resource extraction or manufacturing site will necessarily result in a permanent settlement.

Agreed. Any venture is likely to fail. Some fail faster than others. But some survive long enough for the unexpected to happen and the place takes on a life of its own.

I think the same thing would apply to a military installation.

It might be difficult to get people to relocate, but relatively easier to get people to fly in and out on two week, or even two month, cycles. A lot of Roman casters still exist even after the troops pulled out because the people that moved in to serve the troops and take advantage of the traffic they generated are still there, serving each other and the traffic on the roads that still move through their towns.

I'll go you this far. Any development sites that we establish have the potential for becoming permanent. Some may succeed. Many may fail and disappear. But some may only fall back as far as a place like Cobalt - which serves a local population of less than 1000 after being established as a boom town of 5000 in the 1920s.

I think, for a native community of 500 or so that might be considered a win.