U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-02-2017, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,947 posts, read 27,360,351 times
Reputation: 8603

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by klmrocks View Post
It depends... south of what ? Ex South of the stuff north of civilization .... likely not so much. Who the heck even lives out there. The whole village of 10 trying to remind us they are still out there?

This would likely be a great time for people that choose to live in these places to explain exactly what they are doing up there?

Re: Filling this space with immigrants .... all I got to say is that if someone see pictures of where the governments hopes to relocate them .... especially in the winter ... I think a lot of people might reconsider ex well that dictator really sucks .... but at least we won't freeze to death. That may be a true test of how badly someone want to leave this current situation to come to Canada. "Would you be willing to live in North Canada for the first 5 years". If you survive after that you get automatic citizenship."
I don't see what the advantage of that is as you can become a citizen in 4 years at the moment while living wherever you want in the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2017, 01:15 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,268,124 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I don't see what the advantage of that is as you can become a citizen in 4 years at the moment while living wherever you want in the country.
He was talking about someone who is not qualified to be a permenant resident in the first place, and if he is willing to live in the north for 5 years, then citizenship is awarded.

I think it is a great idea Just needs to making sure they have to be present in the north for the entire 5 years. However, it is impossible to monitor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,593 posts, read 11,082,415 times
Reputation: 10306
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
He was talking about someone who is not qualified to be a permenant resident in the first place, and if he is willing to live in the north for 5 years, then citizenship is awarded.

I think it is a great idea Just needs to making sure they have to be present in the north for the entire 5 years. However, it is impossible to monitor.
Build a wall...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,947 posts, read 27,360,351 times
Reputation: 8603
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
He was talking about someone who is not qualified to be a permenant resident in the first place, and if he is willing to live in the north for 5 years, then citizenship is awarded.

I think it is a great idea Just needs to making sure they have to be present in the north for the entire 5 years. However, it is impossible to monitor.
Not as much as you might think. Much of the north is not easy to get in and out of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
10,789 posts, read 9,432,166 times
Reputation: 6153
Here's my (an American's) take on this:

Canada has definitely not provided the proper infrastructure that it should have provided for the North. There are no paved roads up North, indeed there isn't even a paved road out East along the St. Lawrence Seaway all the way to the Atlantic (route 138 still has a long way to go).

It is a country's duty to build appropriate infrastructure. In the 1950's the US built the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System which connects all the 48 continental states in a gridlike pattern. It was an engineering feat with massive tunnels through the Rocky Mountains, bridges over vast swampland in Louisiana, roads across deserts in Arizona that get to 120 in the summer, etc... By around 1975 most of the system was built-out.

In Canada, it seems that each province has its own highway nomenclature and that is a shame. There is the autoroute system in Quebec, the signage which looks like interstate highways, but the signs in Ontario and the other provinces are vastly different. In reality, Quebec probably has the best controlled access system, with most of the southern portion of the province covered. Ontario is greatly improving in this aspect.

However, as you get further north, you see the problem. Traffic from Toronto to Winnipeg has a choke-point on the Trans-Canada Highway. That is just a poor way to have infrastructure designed. There should be no less than maybe a half dozen ways to get across Ontario.

When you go to the Far North, only the Yukon has viable highways and that's because of the US building the Alaska Highway. There is a highway to Yellowknife and fortunately they built a bridge over the main river crossing, but it's sparsely populated otherwise.

Moving to Manitoba, it's a shame there. There should be a road up to Churchill. There is a viable tourism industry, indeed I have thought of going up there to watch the polar bears. Canada is not allowing that industry to take off.


As far as subsidizing food, I don't really think that's the government's role, unless it's for baby formula or the provisions for families that cannot otherwise support themselves at all. Instead, the government should focus foremost on good roads, then on good schools, and on good defense. It really is insane crazy that there is a chokepoint in Ontario for the Trans-Canada highway, that route 138 in Quebec doesn't stretch all the way to Labrador, and that Churchill doesn't have an all weather roads.

They need to get on this and pronto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2017, 12:48 AM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,175 posts, read 1,753,611 times
Reputation: 2641
No message.

Last edited by ChevySpoons; 02-03-2017 at 01:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2017, 06:08 PM
BMI
 
Location: Ontario
7,265 posts, read 4,506,751 times
Reputation: 5613
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
Here's my (an American's) take on this:

Canada has definitely not provided the proper infrastructure that it should have provided for the North. There are no paved roads up North, indeed there isn't even a paved road out East along the St. Lawrence Seaway all the way to the Atlantic (route 138 still has a long way to go).

It is a country's duty to build appropriate infrastructure. In the 1950's the US built the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System which connects all the 48 continental states in a gridlike pattern. It was an engineering feat with massive tunnels through the Rocky Mountains, bridges over vast swampland in Louisiana, roads across deserts in Arizona that get to 120 in the summer, etc... By around 1975 most of the system was built-out.

In Canada, it seems that each province has its own highway nomenclature and that is a shame. There is the autoroute system in Quebec, the signage which looks like interstate highways, but the signs in Ontario and the other provinces are vastly different. In reality, Quebec probably has the best controlled access system, with most of the southern portion of the province covered. Ontario is greatly improving in this aspect.

However, as you get further north, you see the problem. Traffic from Toronto to Winnipeg has a choke-point on the Trans-Canada Highway. That is just a poor way to have infrastructure designed. There should be no less than maybe a half dozen ways to get across Ontario.

When you go to the Far North, only the Yukon has viable highways and that's because of the US building the Alaska Highway. There is a highway to Yellowknife and fortunately they built a bridge over the main river crossing, but it's sparsely populated otherwise.

Moving to Manitoba, it's a shame there. There should be a road up to Churchill. There is a viable tourism industry, indeed I have thought of going up there to watch the polar bears. Canada is not allowing that industry to take off.


As far as subsidizing food, I don't really think that's the government's role, unless it's for baby formula or the provisions for families that cannot otherwise support themselves at all. Instead, the government should focus foremost on good roads, then on good schools, and on good defense. It really is insane crazy that there is a chokepoint in Ontario for the Trans-Canada highway, that route 138 in Quebec doesn't stretch all the way to Labrador, and that Churchill doesn't have an all weather roads.

They need to get on this and pronto.
Very good points.

Really agree with you on the Trans Canada Highway between Toronto and Winnipeg.

Should be controlled access 4 lanes the entire way. I've read there are plans. Glacially slow
though, should have been completed years ago.

In southern Ontario it is still advantageous to go thru the US to travel Winnipeg,
or anywhere in western Canada ...and that is a real shame.

I don't like crossing the border twice, so I usually travel on the Trans Canada but
it is a real ordeal ...by the time I reach Thunder Bay I'm exhausted.

For a relatively wealthy country Canada's highway infrastructure is poor at best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2017, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Canada
3,912 posts, read 2,730,376 times
Reputation: 5084
Quote:
Moving to Manitoba, it's a shame there. There should be a road up to Churchill. There is a viable tourism industry, indeed I have thought of going up there to watch the polar bears. Canada is not allowing that industry to take off.
The entire population of Manitoba is 1.2 million and the population of Churchill is only about 800. I guess the question is whether the taxpayer cost to build and maintain an all weather road is justified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2017, 08:45 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,248 posts, read 6,588,771 times
Reputation: 14258
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
Here's my (an American's) take on this:

Canada has definitely not provided the proper infrastructure that it should have provided for the North. There are no paved roads up North, indeed there isn't even a paved road out East along the St. Lawrence Seaway all the way to the Atlantic (route 138 still has a long way to go).

It is a country's duty to build appropriate infrastructure. In the 1950's the US built the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System which connects all the 48 continental states in a gridlike pattern. It was an engineering feat with massive tunnels through the Rocky Mountains, bridges over vast swampland in Louisiana, roads across deserts in Arizona that get to 120 in the summer, etc... By around 1975 most of the system was built-out.

In Canada, it seems that each province has its own highway nomenclature and that is a shame. There is the autoroute system in Quebec, the signage which looks like interstate highways, but the signs in Ontario and the other provinces are vastly different. In reality, Quebec probably has the best controlled access system, with most of the southern portion of the province covered. Ontario is greatly improving in this aspect.

However, as you get further north, you see the problem. Traffic from Toronto to Winnipeg has a choke-point on the Trans-Canada Highway. That is just a poor way to have infrastructure designed. There should be no less than maybe a half dozen ways to get across Ontario.

When you go to the Far North, only the Yukon has viable highways and that's because of the US building the Alaska Highway. There is a highway to Yellowknife and fortunately they built a bridge over the main river crossing, but it's sparsely populated otherwise.

Moving to Manitoba, it's a shame there. There should be a road up to Churchill. There is a viable tourism industry, indeed I have thought of going up there to watch the polar bears. Canada is not allowing that industry to take off.


As far as subsidizing food, I don't really think that's the government's role, unless it's for baby formula or the provisions for families that cannot otherwise support themselves at all. Instead, the government should focus foremost on good roads, then on good schools, and on good defense. It really is insane crazy that there is a chokepoint in Ontario for the Trans-Canada highway, that route 138 in Quebec doesn't stretch all the way to Labrador, and that Churchill doesn't have an all weather roads.

They need to get on this and pronto.
LOL. This post is hilarious. A stranger from another country with 10 times the population and wealth of Canada is trying to shame Canada into meeting the standards he thinks should be in place so he can be a tourist and go look at polar bears.

For your information Canada has built the infrastructure it's currently capable of that is affordable and appropriate enough to the population of Canada. You can get back to us about Canada's infrastructure when Canada has a population and wealth 10 times what it is now.

LOL.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2017, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
10,789 posts, read 9,432,166 times
Reputation: 6153
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
The entire population of Manitoba is 1.2 million and the population of Churchill is only about 800. I guess the question is whether the taxpayer cost to build and maintain an all weather road is justified.
The best government expenditures are on roads. It grants mobility to the people up there and allows food to be trucked in instead of flown in, greatly reducing the cost.

From a cost standpoint, the biggest "bang for the buck" would be the Trans Canada Highway from Toronto to Winnipeg. I read that the traffic is quite high but the road is substandard. The Trans Canada Highway should be controlled access from coast to coast. You don't really have interstate highways but at least Trans Canada should be controlled access.

I was reading about when they originally built the Trans Canada in that area and it was an engineering marvel for the time, with lots of rock blasting of the shield and that was at a time when technology was poor.

It's a real shame that Canada doesn't care about such a strategic highway.

The good news is that the twinning of TC from Barrie to Sudbury is happening at a good clip.

The main bottleneck is between Nipigon and Red Rock where the TC is two lanes and the northern and southern route are combined. They at least need to twin that section.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top