[Hipster Duck]

Your definition of sustainability isn't the widely accepted definition. The widely accepted definition (said by the UN,) is that "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

"My" definition was created by scholars in response to the incompleteness and vagueness of the Brundtland definition (the one you posted) above.

When you think about it, "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" is a nice sound bite, but it doesn't mean anything. You don't know what future needs are going to be nor what it will take for future generations to meet whatever needs they have. You don't even know what present needs are - the things you mention: High speed rail, cities that are dense and car-free, some sort of abandonment of American culture, etc. are your desires. They are not universal needs, because there are no universal needs. Yes, there are basic needs of all human beings, but only when expressed in very vague and broad terms: shelter, food, education - when you start outlining what kind of food, what kind of shelter, what kind of education, people need, you immediately begin to see divergences in opinion and value.

Your definition is a functionalist "solution" for sustainability, which totally disregards the fact that our society today is very much unsustainable

Okay, so tell me how your 2-line sound bite from the UN website offers decision-makers a better guideline about how to act in the face of adversity than my suggestion of thinking about complex problems in terms of interconnected systems, identifying people who are involved in a local-scale component of the wider problem and then working collaboratively with them on a jointly-owned and managed solution strategy at their scale.

Am I asking here for a Stalinist government to forcibly relocate people to the prairies? No, and I don't understand how you'd even think that. I'm asking for a democratically elected government which carries out it's plans by doing things like raising or lowering taxes, making it easier to do things that are in the plan, outlawing very bad things like dumping waste, and building infrastructure to make it easier for people to live certain lifestyles.

Very few democratic societies can offer that kind of control. You will find that a government that is democratically elected that begins to do things very rashly doesn't stay in power for very long.

Nowhere is it forcing people to give up their old ways or whatever you, just making it easier for people to pick up new ones.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, rapidly expanding the population of the country and spreading people into places that have not seen growth in several generations is going to result in people being forced to give up their old ways.

I'm sure that there are many immigrants that want to live in the country, or make their own communities where they can find a niche, but can't because it's too hard to. So these people are forced to live in the cities, where there is a way of doing things that makes it easier for immigrants to live there. I'm sure a bunch of people who want to live in their hometowns or cities, but can't because the economy can't support them. So they move to new places. Do you think it would be a command economy if the government just made it easier for people to live there?

I am not sure how the government will "make it easier" for people to live in rural Canada. It could be the result of very heavy-handed central planning and social engineering or it could be the result of weaker incentives and a shifting of resources from the cities to the countryside (which is what we currently already do, to little avail). Whatever the method, this is sort of like forcing water uphill and the results almost always end in failure. Gravitating to the largest cities is a natural process all across the world, and it hasn't ceased - even in countries where the central government starved the cities while lavishing subsidies and economic development programmes on rural areas. In the end, I think you're just going to encounter significant resistance from everyone: city dwellers who must pay through the nose to subsidize rural economic development schemes that don't help them, and rural Canadians who will not be too happy about having hundreds of thousands of newcomers foisted upon them.

Plus, no democratically elected government would play around with fire like that.

EDIT: Though interestingly enough, the only country in the world that meets global sustainability requirements of "high" HDI and under the sustainably footprint for the globe is Cuba, one of the only communist command economies in the world.

By definition, a country that is run under the central command of a politburo is not a sustainable country. Sustainability implies some form of participatory democracy.

 

[Rowe]

The more people Canada gets, the less valuable our citizenship is. It takes so long to become a Canadian citizen at this moment, there is a reason for that. We have a reputation to uphold.

I'm a child of two immigrants, but letting in about 60M people into our country will be a challenge on our society. Now this is not saying we should slow immigration or stop it, but we can't take everyone who wants to come.

To put it bluntly, no country wants other country's hicks. It would be a tough sell to English-speaking, highly educated, and culturally sensitive people who will come from countries that are just as developed as Canada.

With regards to sustainability; I haven't been keeping up with this post but Canadians are some of the most wasteful people because everything is so cheap for us. Its not that it takes more to be Canadian, we are just spoiled with being a resource nation.

I love Canada and I want it to grow. But it has to be done right.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I understand this worry. There are plenty of hicks in other countries, but opening up our population to double wouldn't come near brushing the people that one might consider worthless in their country. Just a step down from the Canadians that we're letting in are people that could still do business and innovate in new business opportunities and niches. And there are also people that can do extensive work in manufacturing, primary industries, and construction. And plenty of the people currently being let into the country aren't getting into the jobs they are qualified for, because of the extensive process of either certifying or outright retaking their education. Master surgeons from India working as taxi drivers, high school teachers from Iran working as nannies, and so on. We let them in for the skills that they have, but we don't use them half of the time, instead letting them do jobs that could be done by people with half of their education.

If Canada was to grow, it couldn't happen ad hoc. Canadians and the government would have to come together to make sure that Canadians (and hopefully Canada) as a whole becomes more sustainable. We'd have to make sure that cultures are being preserved without new ones being left out. We'd have to make sure we get new infrastructure for these people. It's not easy, but again, I think it'd be quite worth it.

 

[Polkaroo]

So, to be blunt, we're a very sparsely populated country. Second largest country in the world, a huge amount of fresh water, but a pretty tiny population. Yet we're world-renowned for having some of the best living conditions in the world. For a while now, I've been wondering why we seem to have no people, and I started doing some serious research into all sorts of facts and figures, at the basics a general study of why people live in certain places, and why they don't and theoretically couldn't live in Canada. So after a good 1 1/2 months of hardcore hobby research, I've come to the conclusion that there's really no reason why more people don't live here.

As I drive around the GTA and all of SW Ontario, I simply don't see this sparseness you speak of. In fact, isn't SW Ontario one of the most densely populated areas on the continent? Letting in many millions of immigrants would simply result in SW Ontario (and GVA, Montreal, Edmonton, etc) becoming even more congested, while the rest of Canada would remain as sparse as it is today. Now, if we let in immigrants under the condition that they must reside in some sparsely populated region (in the far north) for the first say 20 years of their life in Canada, then we may have something. But how do we reconcile that with our concept of a free country with freedom of movement?

 

[LAz]

Mormons to fatten up the base of our demographic pyramid

I think we should strive towards eliminating difference, aka assimilation.

Also, no offense intended, but Canada is a european society. I feel bothered by ideas of bringing in blacks from africa to be 70% of the population. It would no longer be Canada then, but something else. Difference exists, which is something that liberals and socialists do not want to admit.

So after a good 1 1/2 months of hardcore hobby research, I've come to the conclusion that there's really no reason why more people don't live here.

They are not canadian, simple as that.

Adding more people is a drain on resources, ya know. Any growth should be sustainable - and that means not rapid, especially not rapid via mass immigration. The economy is too weak to be able take in two-three million people from poverty stricken lands.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Anyone who prefaces a statement with "no offense intended, but..." does intend to be as offensive as possible, and you did a great job, Laz.

Obviously, if we're going to grow to 100 million quickly, we need families, and we need to import people that want families. Sure, we can recruit yuppies or driven entrepreneurs from India or Beijing and get our economy seemingly chugging along, but 100 million adults without children or the desire to have children would quickly become an extremely ridiculous country. Of course, when those 100 million adults retire with no young people to repalce them, then what? Import more young people? That's where some more targeted human imports are required (and let's face it, if we want to reach 100 million within our lifetimes, we'ed be doing nothing less than importing people for the sake of growth). 100 million people where 30 million of them are kids could work, though. That's millions fewer households needed, millions fewer jobs needed - and the kids themselves would both create jobs like teachers and remove many women from the workforce. In 50 years, though, we all might be wanting to move to China or India, and there may be no large pool of potential migrants.

 

[Rowe]

There are blacks all over Europe and North America.

I'm a Canadian and I am of colour. So is half of my family. Are we less Canadian or are you saying that my family's skin colour is tarnishing Canada's culture Laz?

Differences do exist, but that what makes us stronger and what makes Canada a unique place.

 

[Polkaroo]

I'm a Canadian and I am of colour. So is half of my family. Are we less Canadian or are you saying that my family's skin colour is tarnishing Canada's culture Laz?

I think he's talking about culture, not race. A black person born and raised in Canada would be just as Canadian as any other Canadian while someone who immigrates here would not, and greatly increasing immigration as some in this topic are advocating would alter Canadian culture into something completely different.

 

[Second_in_pie]

As I drive around the GTA and all of SW Ontario, I simply don't see this sparseness you speak of. In fact, isn't SW Ontario one of the most densely populated areas on the continent? Letting in many millions of immigrants would simply result in SW Ontario (and GVA, Montreal, Edmonton, etc) becoming even more congested, while the rest of Canada would remain as sparse as it is today. Now, if we let in immigrants under the condition that they must reside in some sparsely populated region (in the far north) for the first say 20 years of their life in Canada, then we may have something. But how do we reconcile that with our concept of a free country with freedom of movement?

Firstly, SW Ontario is definitely not the most densely populated area in North America, not by a longshot. And that corridor from Quebec to Windsor is by far our most densely populated region in the country.

Again, for what seems like the tenth time, you don't have to forcibly relocate people to the countryside or make millions survive on their own up in Nunavut. You just have to make living in the country, even these large cities like Saskatoon and Moncton, easier for people. And how do you do that? Help small, local business, and provide infrastructure for people to take advantage of. By doing this, you're also helping the millions of Canadians that exist in the country today that have a bit of an infrastructure deficit.
I think I've explicitly stated that I don't think it's a good idea at all to start putting people en masse in the north, but instead to populate the areas that we've already settled. You may not think it, but the prairies have a very low population density, even just the southern half that's made up of very, very good farmland and comfortable climates. Canada just hasn't evolved the kind of density that exists in almost everywhere else in the world which comes from any kind of economic activity. Southern Canada in general can self-support their own population just as Europe, the Eastern and West Coast US, China, South American Coast, etc, can support. The only thing it'd gain is density of scale for the few people that have to live there to support farming activity, and opportunities for new and interesting things. A vast majority of our population is in the southern 1/4 or so of the mainland, which encompasses the Prairies, which could support several times their current population density just by building demand by having people there. When you have people in an area, they do create demand for their own resources and are very well able to set up their own economies which didn't exist there before.

So in short, don't tell people to live there, give them an opportunity to live there. And, as Keithz said a page back or so, just see how it goes. Edge up immigration a bit and start getting on issues like infrastructure debt and environmentally unfriendly activity. Do that for maybe 5 years, assess how things have been going, and then up it a bit, or give better infrastructure where it's needed. It's not so much as needing a government plan as a government direction.

LAz, I don't think that BC would be BC, or the GTA would be the GTA without all of the different ethnicities and "un Canadian" culture. I'm ok with assimilating some people, and there should always be the opportunity for anyone to bring up a culture that they like. But there's also plenty of room in the country for more cultures and for people to keep their own; it's not like we'd be any less varied if we just kept the status quo, stretching from Newfoundland to New Brunswick, to Quebec, to Northern Ontario, to Alberta to BC, not to mention Six Nations, Inuit, Cree, Blackfoot, Huron, Haida, Slave, and the dozens of other Aboriginal cultures in the country.

 

[Rowe]

Sorry to break it to you Polkaroo but I am the only one of the few people in my family that was born in this country. My mother and father, both immigrants are just as Canadian as I am. They have been in this country longer than I have been alive.

Canada is a country made of immigrants. To say that they are 'not as Canadian' as people who were born here is unacceptable. Canadians don't treat people that way, that's why we have the reputation we have.

 

[Polkaroo]

Again, for what seems like the tenth time, you don't have to forcibly relocate people to the countryside or make millions survive on their own up in Nunavut. You just have to make living in the country, even these large cities like Saskatoon and Moncton, easier for people. And how do you do that? Help small, local business, and provide infrastructure for people to take advantage of. By doing this, you're also helping the millions of Canadians that exist in the country today that have a bit of an infrastructure deficit.
I think I've explicitly stated that I don't think it's a good idea at all to start putting people en masse in the north, but instead to populate the areas that we've already settled. You may not think it, but the prairies have a very low population density, even just the southern half that's made up of very, very good farmland and comfortable climates. Canada just hasn't evolved the kind of density that exists in almost everywhere else in the world which comes from any kind of economic activity. Southern Canada in general can self-support their own population just as Europe, the Eastern and West Coast US, China, South American Coast, etc, can support. The only thing it'd gain is density of scale for the few people that have to live there to support farming activity, and opportunities for new and interesting things. A vast majority of our population is in the southern 1/4 or so of the mainland, which encompasses the Prairies, which could support several times their current population density just by building demand by having people there. When you have people in an area, they do create demand for their own resources and are very well able to set up their own economies which didn't exist there before.

But immigrants WON"T go to small towns in the praries or the maritimes in any significant numbers, they will overwhelmingly flock to the GTA, GVA, and Montreal.

 

[Polkaroo]

Sorry to break it to you Polkaroo

Relax, no need for a tone.

My mother and father, both immigrants are just as Canadian as I am.

I disagree, while they may be just as patriotic as anyone they still bring with them their previous culture from wherever they come from. Don't misinterpret this to mean that they are in any way worse citizens than Canadian-born citizens, but the fact remains that someone born elsewhere simply cannot be as "Canadian" as someone born here.

Canada is a country made of immigrants. To say that they are 'not as Canadian' as people who were born here is unacceptable.

I disagree.

 

[urbandreamer]

Yep, not buying that PC nonsense. My father has lived in Canada for over 40 years, yet he's still 100% American in outlook. For example, on hearing about the g20 protests, his first concern: If they touch the American Consulate he hoped Americans would shoot the protesters for daring to damage America.

As a 100% b&b Canadian, I would say--jolly good show.

My neighbour is an 80 year old Ukrainian immigrant, has been in Canada since after WW2. Yet she still refers to herself as 100% Ukrainian, "living" in Toronto. Most of her life is spent talking in Ukrainian, shopping at Ukrainian stores, watching Ukrainian TV, etc. Is she really a Canadian?

 

[Second_in_pie]

But immigrants WON"T go to small towns in the praries or the maritimes in any significant numbers, they will overwhelmingly flock to the GTA, GVA, and Montreal.

And explain why they won't.

 

[Polkaroo]

Yep, not buying that PC nonsense. My father has lived in Canada for over 40 years, yet he's still 100% American in outlook. For example, on hearing about the g20 protests, his first concern: If they touch the American Consulate he hoped Americans would shoot the protesters for daring to damage America.

As a 100% b&b Canadian, I would say--jolly good show.

My neighbour is an 80 year old Ukrainian immigrant, has been in Canada since after WW2. Yet she still refers to herself as 100% Ukrainian, "living" in Toronto. Most of her life is spent talking in Ukrainian, shopping at Ukrainian stores, watching Ukrainian TV, etc. Is she really a Canadian?

My parents also immigrated here just over 30 years ago... And although they are model citizens, they are clearly not as Canadian as someone born here. They speak their mother tongue at home, and when they must speak English they speak it with an accent. I would suggest that in order to be fully Canadian from a cultural perspective, you would have to be either born in Canada, or have come here at a very young age. There are certain cultural traits that one can only pick up while being raised in Canada. Others may disagree, but that's been my experience.