A bigger Canada?

[Second_in_pie]

I'm curious as to what you're basing your allegations on. You're continuing to ignore that agriculture has been successful in many other cold locations on the planet, as I said Northern China and the Eurasian Steppe, who's agriculture has allowed for the kind of urban-rural relationship which results in a diversified local economy with industry and services, something that the Prairies lack.

Firstly, the Northeastern US experiences a summer/winter climate cycle that's very similar to what we experience in Canada. Actual temperatures and freezing conditions prevent growing during a large portion of the year. Yet, somehow, these regions have been able to support a high population density, at least high in relation to that of the Prairie provinces, and even higher than that of the Quebec-Windsor corridor. Southern Ontario experiences a climate similar to that of Germany or the UK, but has a considerably lower population density, even though a lot of the Quebec-Windsor growth I think would be in an integrated service-manufacturing economy located in large, dense towns and larger cities.
When you get to the prairies, it's a different story. There's just not the rural population to allow the growth of towns, which in turn limits the possibility of large cities to be the regional centres of that rural-urban relationship. But they are still some of the most productive farmland in the world, and experience a similar seasonal up and down climate to that of the US midwest.

Secondly, there are actually relatively few places on earth which have year-round growing seasons or "permanent crops." Even in tropical places, instead of a summer and winter, they experience rainy and dry seasons, the dry seasons being equivalent to our winters where there is high soil evaporation, and the rivers flow much, much more slowly with almost no rain (many just dry up.) To grow food during these times of the year, you'd have to pump in water from the other side of a mountain range, or desalinize it, which at the scale of irrigating a farming area all year round, I would say is quite comparable to just greenhousing over large swaths of the prairies. The only places that could really support year-round growing conditions are the tropical rainforests, and we really shouldn't be chopping those down just so we can say we now have year-round growing conditions.

EDIT: And as for Canadian agriculture supporting new people, we already support a lot of people around the world. Again, Canada is a net exporter of foodstuffs. We have room to feed more mouths with the food we produce now.
And even if we ended up not being able to produce our food for all our people, there's still little problem with that. Let's say we take a bunch of people out of Nigeria and let them live in Canada. But uh-oh, we don't have enough food for them! The cool thing is, now those people don't have to eat food from Nigeria. That means that we can import food from Nigeria and use it to feed these people that would be living in Nigeria and eating Nigerian food if they weren't living in Canada. Think of it like algebra; if you add to one side, you have to take away from the other. Think of it like algebra; if you add to one side, you have to take away from the other.

 

[gristle]

Okay, two points: Firstly, that's what has always been done and there doesn't seem to be a problem with it. Okay, so we can't grow bananas here. That doesn't mean that nobody should be living here. Again, look at the country in terms of as a part of the world. If we have less land to grow fruit and vegetables, that means we export our grains to other countries, where they can use their warmer, moister or more fertile land to grow fruits and vegetables to sell to us. I don't think there's a country in the world that produces all of the food it's people eat.

So you acknowledge that we import a great range of diverse agricultural products. So do many other nations, and so do the populations of countries where there is an increasing standard of living (which results in a greater degree of agricultural demand). Add to that, there is growing pressure in parts of the world to convert crop lands from growing food to growing fuel. Combine that with a growing global population and you have increased pressure on the availability of agricultural production. It's worth thinking about.

Also, vegetables are the most logical crops to grow using greenhouses, hydroponics and urban agriculture. In the valleys in BC, lack of arable land space could be offset by an abundance of water and easy power, meaning easier hydroponics and greenhouse building, along with the obvious beautiful geography and warm climate that people might find attractive.

You neglect to mention that greenhouse and hydroponic crops are more expensive to grow. Presently, there is only 600 hectares of hyrdroponic crop output in Canada - mostly tomatoes, cucumbers and sweet peppers. Greenhouses offer up another 760 hectares of growing space. In all, you are not talking about a giant portion of the total agricultural economy of Canada. If you you want to argue for a massive increase in hydroponic and greenhouse production, you should be making the economic case for it.

Read back in the thread please. I personally don't think that we should be growing our population for economic or political reasons, and I think the greatest benefits are socially.

That's really not an argument, it's an assumption.

A higher population is good for the country's social state. It gives a density of scale that allows things like better infrastructure and specialization. It also allows you to get what many consider a desirable built form of your country with people living everywhere, in little houses in the country, small towns, bigger towns, more cities, etc. Haven't you heard all of those oh-so funny jokes that people make about the prairies being the middle of nowhere?

Again, you are making unsupported claims for massive increases in population. You might try and define the goods of the country's social state, otherwise your assertions remain vague. And who cares about jokes about the prairies? That's hardly a rationale for what you are wanting. Even you have no idea where people will ultimately choose to settle. Given present trends, it would be cities.

So you're saying that if you take someone from China and put him in Toronto, he'll disappear off of the earth? Wow!

No, you said that. please don't confuse your ignorance with anyone else.

How do you know global population will stabilize? You don't.

If you take someone from India and put them in Canada, it's making India less crowded.

Going by your logic, it would make Canada more crowded, wouldn't it? Is this what your argument is all about? Dispersing what you assume as "crowds"?

Relative to the rest of the Earth, Canada is underpopulated.

Again, that statement means nothing until you attempt to properly qualify your definitions. The mere comparisons you are engaging in are useless.

How many times to I have to say this? I don't think people should live up north. That that region should remain untouched as possible. When I say that Canada has room for plenty of more people, I'm just talking about the most densely populated parts of our country; the Quebec-Windsor corridor, the southern Rockies in BC, the Maritimes, and the Prairies. And comparing these regions to other places on earth, comfortably populated places like Europe or South America or the Eastern US, we have a very low population density.

In a previous portion of your post you were making references to the prairies, now it's city regions. I have news for you, it is the city regions that will be receiving most of the new immigrants. That is the exisiting trend. Good that you recognize that the corridor region is already densely populated. It's not exactly a massive piece of Canadian geography, but it already does suffer from an increasing degree of urban sprawl that is eating into the rich agricultural lands surrounding many of tho communities of that region.

comparing BC with Japan, which has a climate that's maybe 4 degrees warmer in the winter, but the same rocky, mountainous geography that southern BC has. Yet southern BC has fractions of the density of Japan, like 1/20th of the population even though the 3rd largest city in the country is in BC.

You are going to have to get beyond mere generalizations such as this. It is a little more complex than counting heads or comparing an average temperature. No insult intended, but such simplistic measurements do little to serve your assertions, and it diminishes the complexity of the situation.

 

[Second_in_pie]

So you acknowledge that we import a great range of diverse agricultural products. So do many other nations, and so do the populations of countries where there is an increasing standard of living (which results in a greater degree of agricultural demand). Add to that, there is growing pressure in parts of the world to convert crop lands from growing food to growing fuel. Combine that with a growing global population and you have increased pressure on the availability of agricultural production. It's worth thinking about.You are going to have to get beyond mere generalizations such as this. It is a little more complex than counting heads or comparing an average temperature. No insult intended, but such simplistic measurements do little to serve your assertions, and it diminishes the complexity of the situation.

Yes. The Earth's going downhill. It's a problem. But it's doesn't scream much relevance in an argument against letting people into the country.

That's really not an argument, it's an assumption.

Again, you are making unsupported claims for massive increases in population. You might try and define the goods of the country's social state, otherwise your assertions remain vague. And who cares about jokes about the prairies? That's hardly a rationale for what you are wanting. Even you have no idea where people will ultimately choose to settle. Given present trends, it would be cities.

Sure, it was an assumption that people in the Prairies don't want their closest neighbors to be 2 km away and for the closest human settlement to be 30km away, with the closest library a two hour's drive. Most arguments are based on assumptions, and when you're trying to start a discussion from scratch that discusses the possible social ramifications of something, it's kind of hard to definitively say something. But if someone does that, the point of the discussion is to dispute/hypothesize on the actual ramifications of something, not the fact that it's an opinion or otherwise has not been scientifically proven.

I personally think that people most prefer a non-urban density similar to that of Europe or the Quebec-Windsor corridor. It creates the density for diverse social groups and density-based "luxuries" that most of the world likes. It also allows for a properly functioning urban/rural economy and social structure which creates diverse and comfortable communities. Western Canada is for the most part devoid of such density.

Going by your logic, it would make Canada more crowded, wouldn't it? Is this what your argument is all about? Dispersing what you assume as "crowds"?

Yes, it would. Maybe I need to tell you to refer back to the above point, that I think that Canada needs to have more density.

In a previous portion of your post you were making references to the prairies, now it's city regions. I have news for you, it is the city regions that will be receiving most of the new immigrants. That is the exisiting trend. Good that you recognize that the corridor region is already densely populated. It's not exactly a massive piece of Canadian geography, but it already does suffer from an increasing degree of urban sprawl that is eating into the rich agricultural lands surrounding many of tho communities of that region.

Maybe they will be, but that's a new problem. I think that there's opportunity to increase the rural population at the same time, creating a natural rural economy similar to the Eastern US, Europe, or China. Sure, many people might go to cities, but there's definitely room for many more people to live in the countryside. Maybe you could instead give insight into how people may be attracted to the countryside?

You are going to have to get beyond mere generalizations such as this. It is a little more complex than counting heads or comparing an average temperature. No insult intended, but such simplistic measurements do little to serve your assertions, and it diminishes the complexity of the situation.

Then tell me, what is the more complicated and right way of analyzing this? You can't just say that someone's wrong, without saying that they're wrong.

 

[gristle]

Then tell me, what is the more complicated and right way of analyzing this? You can't just say that someone's wrong, without saying that they're wrong.

That is entirely your task. Since you are arguing for this position, you have to defend it. It's not my task to write the arguments on your behalf. The fact that you couch much of your position on the basis of what you believe other people think or feel, or by way of poor comparisons or simplistic statements - like that you "think that Canada needs more density" - hardly provides anything compelling to support your desires (and that, in the end, is really all that you are drawing attention to). The simple fact of the matter is that what you wish for won't be coming through.

 

[Second_in_pie]

You can't say something's wrong and have the other grasping at straws for the right answer while you pretend you've won some kind of argument. I've noted several times that the Prairies have a very similar geography and climate to Northern China and the Eurasian steppe, which both have a far higher density than the Prairies. The coastal mountains in BC have a similar climate to Japan, and the interior rockies are only a few degrees colder. Tell me why then, the Prairies could support 20 million people (at the most in what I'm advocating here,) which is half of the population density of Spain, and that the southernmost part of BC couldn't support 20 million, which is less than 1/3 of the density that exists in Japan.

All that's happened in the Prairies and BC is that they've missed the kind of rural evolution (and to be honest, much evolution at all,) that's been going on almost everywhere else in the world. The prairies are a huge open area that could attract a huge population. Maybe not China-like densities, but I'd call it entirely reasonable for them to have a rural density and development similar to Spain, with some big density corridors along the current CN and CP mainlines.

And there's still plenty to improve on. I've already expressly stated that I think some very fundamental parts of society need to be changed, but I honestly think that Canadians could do both. By letting in many more immigrants, the Prairies and BC could develop a rural density in a planned and aesthetically pleasing way, like China or Europe has. You'll also be able to have those immigrants move together and create very local economies. Pressure put on the electricity grid would encourage Canadians to be more energy-efficient, and open up a big market in sustainable and local energy sources, like geothermal, wind, solar, hydro, or biomass. By having to change to these new social pressures, Canada will be in a position on top of the world in the future. Of course, it'll take the government and a forward-thinking populace to make sure things actually go well, but that's true for anything.
And what are the pros of this? Well Canada gets to be a more ethnically and culturally diverse country. If we are able to use immigrants as a catalyst for widespread change throughout the country, that there is accomplishing a lot. There's the issue of density of scale in the West, which could really improve people's lifestyles if the Prairies and BC had the kind of density that you'd find elsewhere in the world, in both an economic and social sense. The people living there get more luxuries associated with density, and have the opportunity for communities like you'd find in the Eastern US, Quebec-Windsor corridor, Europe, China, really anywhere else in the world.
The point of a higher population growth rate is so that the country can keep it's cities expanding at the rate they currently are, while also being able to fuel growth in rural areas and using the overall pressure of new people to change the country for the better.

 

[Irishmonk]

Has energy production been discussed in this thread? If not, I'm wondering if anyone has an answer as to how Ontario would provide enough electrical power for 30-40 million people when we can't even meet the peak demand for our present day pop. of around 13 million. The only realistic options that I see are massive increases in coal and nuclear energy supply both of which are unpalatable to the voting public, and hugely detrimental to the environment. Unfortunately, hydro is pretty much maxed out and alternatives like wind and solar can realistically provide only about 10% of energy needs.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Points well noted. However, using PVPs, a house can go almost 100% off the grid. Multiply that across a sizeable portion of suburbia, your electricity needs go way down. Similarly, wind power is virtually undeveloped here in Southern Ontario, and the large projects going in around the thousand islands and proposed ones such as the scarborough bluffs is just the tip of the iceberg.

Otherwise, a lot of energy can be saved by switching to more energy-efficient lifestyles. Create a smart energy grid, make homes and businesses more energy efficient, etc. You can really save huge amounts of electricity by ticking off the small things, and I don't think it'd be that hard for the government to just make sure maybe half of those things get ticked off.

And I think the max Southern Ontario would have is 30 million. While I think that more people could fit comfortably as they do in England, I just don't see that much of a reason to have so many more people. The GGH would probably have 15-20 million people, leaving room for several other cities having high populations and perhaps a slightly higher rural density.

 

[kEiThZ]

We' easily got enough arable land to feed a ton of people. Even energy is not that big of a concern. We don't do small hydro. That alone, combined with small wind, more rooftop solar, etc. would meet a lot of our needs. We're just lazy. That's the problem. Most Canadians would never want to do the work involved in building a more efficient society that could take in more people.

 

[urbandreamer]

Why not just merge Canada with India? Problem solved.

 

[LAz]

Eh, been away for a bit. Didn't forget you man. Never will.



Basically to rehash what has been said...


1) There is no money for the infrastructure, from sewers from the crap to other things such as subways and so forth. Jobs, and whatnot... we just can't cope with such growth economically.

2) Racially you are wanting for the majority to become a minority. Goodluck selling that to the whites. I do not want to be a minority, and I am sure most other whites do not. But you are a minority, so naturally you do not see any problem with this.

3) Your ideas are very authoritarian.

And in what I think is the odd event that the country can't support 100 million people, then we just start to import food

Food is national security. It is in the US at least. Should be so everywhere. We must not be dependant upon others.

At any rate, cut that 5% arable land in half, because we will be using it to build new sksycrapers to accommodate the tens of millions of blacks coming over from africa in this scenario.

The most productive land in America - Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio - all face "severe winters" by the definition many people use.

The farms in illinois are fucking out real fast. Small farmers are going out of business because they can not compete with the mass agro companies.

If you take someone from India and put them in Canada, it's making India less crowded. Relative to the rest of the Earth, Canada is underpopulated. By stopping people from migrating to this sparsely populated country, even the southern part that's highly comparable to the Eurasian Steppe, Europe, or Japan, we're in a way reducing the livable space on Earth.

But the world is not one country. You have to understand that. There is difference.
Iceland keeps people out, otherwise there would no longer be an icelandic culture. They could probably take on a few million somehow - and in effect kill themselves.
Why on earth should one region be penalized by the overpopulation of another region on the other side of the world?

How do you know global population will stabilize? You don't.

It's a very circular argument. By the time Canada gets 100 million in his scenario the world might have 50 billion. And then he or some other such person will say OMG WE NEED TO TAKE MORE to alleviate the overpopulated places.

We're populated just fine as we are. I do not want to have these 10-20 million people megapolises in Canada.
But does my opinion matter? Authoritarian leader here does not care. His opinion is what matters, and all else must be disregarded. Stalin thought so too. "We'll build whatever I say at whatever the cost, without regard for humanity." Or perhaps like how they built the capital of Brazil, the continual construction project whose cost is so high that it was not revealed - or even known.

Relative to the rest of the Earth, Canada is underpopulated.

Really? I was thinking that we need to reduce our population rather than expand it.

Has energy production been discussed in this thread? If not, I'm wondering if anyone has an answer as to how Ontario would provide enough electrical power for 30-40 million people when we can't even meet the peak demand for our present day pop. of around 13 million.

Yeah, my economic and environmental stuff, which he has quickly discarded.

 

[Polkaroo]

2) Racially you are wanting for the majority to become a minority. Goodluck selling that to the whites. I do not want to be a minority, and I am sure most other whites do not. But you are a minority, so naturally you do not see any problem with this.

Even with current immigration trends, that will happen in Canada in the not too distant future. No increase in immigration necessary.

 

[Second_in_pie]

1) There is no money for the infrastructure, from sewers from the crap to other things such as subways and so forth. Jobs, and whatnot... we just can't cope with such growth economically.

2) Racially you are wanting for the majority to become a minority. Goodluck selling that to the whites. I do not want to be a minority, and I am sure most other whites do not. But you are a minority, so naturally you do not see any problem with this.

3) Your ideas are very authoritarian.

1) I've addressed this before. Not only is there the fact that Canada is constantly cutting back on taxes making it one of the lowest taxed of the developed countries, it's also one of the richest per capita countries in the world. Plenty of opportunity for the government to get money for infrastructure and such there.
Secondly, if that's the case, Canada's screwed anyways. You do realize that currently we have a massive nationwide infrastructure debt? Not only in terms of city-centred rapid transit (which we need billions upon billions of dollars for already,) but for interurban transit in the form of HSR and regional rail, our aging electricity grid, inefficient water management systems, poorly managed and administered environmental systems. As Keithz puts it quite well, Canadians are lazy. We're going to have to confront that laziness soon, whether it's providing for our population using current growth trends, or with a doubled immigration rate. But, if we're going to be replacing sewers and essentially rebuilding entire electricity, water and transportation networks, that's the point that it becomes a lot easier to build it for three times the population.

1) Food is national security. It is in the US at least. Should be so everywhere. We must not be dependant upon others.

2) At any rate, cut that 5% arable land in half, because we will be using it to build new sksycrapers to accommodate the tens of millions of blacks coming over from africa in this scenario.

3) The farms in illinois are fucking out real fast. Small farmers are going out of business because they can not compete with the mass agro companies.

1) The US is obviously a country we should be looking towards when in search of economic and foreign policy advice. Not to mention that the US also imports a large amount of food, though still exports a large amount too. Just like Canada does and would continue to do so even with a tripled population.

2) I think I've noted before that the country could triple in population by mostly maintaining the current urban and rural form. Aka densify cities and towns. If the country's going to be amassing a huge initiative to revamp Canada, that would be a relatively easy task when they're providing the infrastructure that addresses current needs and those of a significantly larger Canada.

3) Rural Illinois losing population density being a bad thing (I agree) as an argument against increasing the rural density in Canada? Brilliant. I love illogical logic.

And I'd just like to add two things right now: Firstly, what's with you and Africans? I don't think you've mentioned Indians or Latin Americans or South East Asians at all, yet you harp on about how all the uneducated slumdogs are going to plague the country.
That ties me into my second note, all your cussing really isn't doing a good number on your credibility as an actual member of the discussion. Just a helpful reminder there.

It's a very circular argument. By the time Canada gets 100 million in his scenario the world might have 50 billion. And then he or some other such person will say OMG WE NEED TO TAKE MORE to alleviate the overpopulated places.

Yes, we would.

We're populated just fine as we are. I do not want to have these 10-20 million people megapolises in Canada.
But does my opinion matter? Authoritarian leader here does not care. His opinion is what matters, and all else must be disregarded. Stalin thought so too. "We'll build whatever I say at whatever the cost, without regard for humanity." Or perhaps like how they built the capital of Brazil, the continual construction project whose cost is so high that it was not revealed - or even known.

From what I've gathered, people like the idea of being in a big bustling metropolis. People cheered when they saw that the GTA's official population was over 5.5 million.
You seem to be operating on the idea that everyone in Canada would be dramatically opposed to this. And from what I've gathered through conversation with other Canadians from across the country, none of them are opposed in a manner similar to your fears of Canada's white dominated society being diluted towards a white minority along with Chinese, Indians, Africans, Arabs and so forth. Similarly, they all believe that Western Canada is seriously underpopulated and could support many more people. They all think that Canada needs to work hard on improving it's infrastructure and physical and social structures.
"Or perhaps like how they build the capital of Brazil, the continual construction project whose cost is so high that it was not revealed-or even known." Sounds just like Ottawa! Or Washington DC! Or London! Though that said, the planned out way that Brazilia developed has resulted in it being named a UNESCO world heritage site, as well a beacon for the rural poor in the impoverished region, and a world precedent for planned, environmentally and socially-sensitive development. But hey, people planned it! Disgusting authoritarianism which meant that nosepicker joe couldn't solely decide where the best place to put a metro stop would be.

And through your childish attempts to destroy my credibility as a simple proposer of an idea through comparing me to ruthless dictators is cute like a disney movie, I will note that Canadians may not want it. And I could care less if that's the case; I've already given up a lot of faith in this country as a being (individual Canadians will always have a soft spot in me.) I'm not the kind of nationalist that believes it needs to strive it's hardest to be a successful country dancing about on the world stage. I just think that the country provides an interesting canvas for a radically different multicultural society based on strong social morals, and that it'd be nice for Canadians to have an opportunity to rejig the structure of the country and have better infrastructure and whatnot. But I'm just assuming that you went apeshit at the promise of more Chinese.

Even with current immigration trends, that will happen in Canada in the not too distant future. No increase in immigration necessary.

I remember hearing something on the radio about having a 35% visible minority population by either 2020, 2025 or 2030, with way higher percentages in Ontario and BC at least.

 

[Long Island Mike]

A larger-population Canada? Perhaps by annexing some northern US states...

Everyone: This is an interesting topic concerning population growth suggestions in Canada...

After thinking about this a bit I can not get the thought out of my mind that Canada would have to annex a few northern US states to reach this population goal if populated places like southern Ontario can not accomodate major development and expansion...The reason I bring annexing some US states in the northern US up is that I feel that many people in northern states actually have more in common with Canada then those in the US South and West...and that may be one of the only ways to have a large population growth as mentioned...

Does anyone have any opinions concerning my thoughts? LI MIKE

 

[LAz]

Does anyone have any opinions concerning my thoughts? LI MIKE

I'll respond to you first.
The problem is that the US runs on a two party system. The paranoia against the NDP would be too great. When hoards of idiots are calling Obama a communist - wtf? - then just imagine what they would call the NDP? Super Communists?

Then again, Alberta might rather be with Texas than Ontario.

Yes, we would.

So there we have it, you admit the circular logic. So, 100 million is only the beginning, of what might later be 500 million. Slippery slope ya know.

Sounds just like Ottawa! Or Washington DC! Or London!

Brasilia was built pretty much over night. The insanity of it resulted in a military coup, as the freaks that decided to build it made it a continual construction site, whose costs are to this day unknown. It put brazil back, to say the least.

I think I've noted before that the country could triple in population by mostly maintaining the current urban and rural form.

At the minimum you would need to have highrises, shitloads of them - and try selling your old wife's tale to someone about how this would not change the urban form.
The slumdwellers that will move to Canada and live in them will not have money to buy condos. So this will have to be public housing. You know what's next - lack of investment, and naturally the morphing into a vertical ghetto.
I mean, where the hell are we gonna get all this money to build these highrises??? The government wants to reduce public housing, not expand it. The private sector will laugh in you face as there is no profit in this for them.

Rural Illinois losing population density being a bad thing (I agree) as an argument against increasing the rural density in Canada?

It is an argument against your ideas that we can increase farming easily. The only increase in farming is gonna be the big mass agrobusiness farming.

And I'd just like to add two things right now: Firstly, what's with you and Africans? I don't think you've mentioned Indians or Latin Americans or South East Asians at all, yet you harp on about how all the uneducated slumdogs are going to plague the country.

Oh sorry, would it have been better if I used the word slumdwellers, or dark skinned? The whites from latin america are not gonna come up here - they are the upper class down there. That leaves the indigenous and the afro-colombians to want to move up to Canada - along with the colored asians and blacks from africa....

...which results in us whites becoming a 25-30% minority perhaps, by the time you get your wish of having 100 million people.
How on earth you plan to sell this plan of the majority becoming a small minority is beyond me.

Dunno what you're smoking bro, but whatever it is, I'll take two of it!

 

[urbandreamer]

Looks like my prediction--Americans moving to Canada--may happen. Look what billionaire John Malone is saying: http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/broadway_17th/2010/07/john_malone_talks_and_talks.html

From the Wall Street Journal again, when Malone was asked what he's doing to protect against the weak American economy:

"Well, my wife, who is very concerned about these things, moved all her personal cash to Australia and Canada. She wants to have a place to go if things blow up here. Canada has a lot more fiscal and bank responsibility than most places in the world and lots of natural resources. We have a retreat that's right on the Quebec border. We own 18 miles on the border, so we can cross. Anytime we want to we can get away. It would probably be illegal but we could go. Actually our snowmobile trail goes right on the border."

Read more: John Malone talks (and talks) - Denver Business Journal

The hot topic these days on Investorshub? Wealthy folk moving to Canada, to own land in the country and control some water resources.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

With strong Texan roots, I can say that Alberta has zippo in common with Texas. Perhaps with the mid-western plain states, but certainly nothing in common with the South.