Make Canada More Populous Within OTL Borders

[LoftonHenderson]

This is very difficult with a 20th century PoD.

The best way to achieve this is to avoid the Great War. Immigration was exploding in the lead up to the war, and even it tapers off somewhat for the following decade, you're looking at millions of extra people by the 21st century.

I'm always leery of the Mid-Canada corridor, because I think it's mostly an economic anchor that wouldn't provide a ton of extra value and would trap people in towns with little economic outlook and depressed property values.

I'd recommend just totally butterflying away Saskatchewan and keeping it united with Alberta as the province of Buffalo. Saskatchewan is too poor and thinly populated to have properly exploited its resources, and Alberta consumed all of Saskatchewan's growth for seven decades anyways. If the capital remains in Battlefird, which makes sense as a central hub, the province likely has three major cities: Battleford, Edmonton, and Calgary. Edmonton may not be be as big as OTL, maybe 50% of the size, but Battleford is probably also hovering around a million people. Swift Current, Moose Jaw, Weyburn and Estevan are probably double their size too. Regina is likely butterflied away. If oilbis discovered ten years earlier, and there's no reason it couldn't be (it was government issued exploration credits than technical feasibility) you'll see the oil boom kick off a decade faster than OTL and give another decade of growth, probably adding at least half a million souls to the province and some much needed currency during the Great Depression.

The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline being approved would do absolute wonders for northern development and could easily see the territories double the OTL population from all the investment making it easier for other economic activity to tale place. Two extra pipelines to tidewater keep the WCS/WTI spread low and keep Canada's oil more profitable, driving further long term growth. Not using the NEP adds another $500 billion+ to the Buffalo GDP too, adding even more people to the region.

I'm still leery of a big and strong province being able to build a road all the way to Uranium City. From the west is impossible because it's nothing but a giant inland delta, and from the east you need to build about 200 bridges along the shore of Lake Athabaska. There's nothing saying it can't be done, but the cost would be astronomical. That said, a strong province would likely see a lot more investment because it wouldn't let all these projects languish in obscurity from a lack of government resources. Alberta always had far more economic dynamo than Saskatchewan regarding infrastructure investment and business tax credits.

The Georgian Bay canal is just too late for a 20th century POD. There's no need for it when the St. Lawrence Seaway gets built. You're spending huge sums of money to divert a small amount of goods slightly faster. In the mid 19th century it might have made sense (not that Canada could have afforded it), but not in the 20th.

Buffalo is an interesting idea, I like where you're going with that. Was that something being considered at the time in 1905 (and was that name being considered for the "united" new province)?

I've also been excluding most of the far north stuff because of the costs involved. GBSC maybe could have happened in the late '10s and early '20s if things had gone differently? I know it's a reach and wildly expensive for not a tremendous amount of gain outside the local region. I agree 19th century Canada likely didn't have the money to build it, while 20th century Canada probably lacked a reason. But are there any divergences that would make the UK interested in funding some of it/increase pressure and reason for the canal at any point?

Also what's the "NEP"? Not familiar with that acronym. Also "WCS/WTI"?

 

[LoftonHenderson]

I love this very high effort post. You've done a incredible job presenting a plausible and imaginative look at this.

For right now all I want to add is two notes on the plausibility of a higher Canadian population. Before the first world war canada was in the midst of a massive immigration wave, in 1913 alone 400,00 had arrived; and whilst that was certainly the peak the following year some 130,00 arrived in the months immediately preceding the July Crisis. Averting that, you can have a conservative estimate of 2 million staying and permanently settling in the country, and that would give you four-five million living descendants to work with.

The second is the effects of a more religious Quebec. French Canadians bred like rabbits and quebec was almost unique among European decended countries in seeing a rise in fertility during the first half of the twentieth century-until the seventies it was growing at a rate above twenty per-cent every ten years. It was only the unique circumstances of the silent revolution that put an end to a centuries long trend of high birthrates, and if it that had been averted there would now be some twelve and a half million souls living in Quebec. Now some secularization is likely inevitable in a world with anywhere near OTL's schedule of technological progress, yet even taking that into account one can quite sensibly arrive at another three to four million additional people in this Canada.

with even the barest adjustment in the fall of non francophone birthrates in response, a canada holding over fifty million people is absolutely not implausible divergence after the turn of the century.

Thank you for the kind words! I'm very glad this thread got so much interest and engagement -- a lot more than I expected for something so niche.

For the Great War, will discuss that below. But the Quebecois birthrates point is a very good one! It doesn't seem like it would take too much to plausibly avert the silent revolution. And also glad you brought up the living descendants things -- is it about accurate to expect that "approx 2 million permanently settling in the 1910s" equals "4-5 million living descendants" today? I have no clue how to estimate that, but if we start looking at PODs and when additional immigrants are coming in, that could be a much better way to estimate 2021 population.

You and @The Gunslinger are probably right, we've had a lot of great stuff on population "capacity" and it's probably time to start talking about PODs. I was avoiding it because initially I was more interested simply in what areas could fit more people/if Canada got more people, where would they live... I think that question has been answered pretty well thanks to all the fine folks offering their insights.

As for PODs, there's been talk of pre-1812 from @TheMann, there's been talk of of averting WW1... I know it's a pretty hard sell with a 20th century POD. I've already said that Britain gets Alaska out of the Crimean War in 1856, later joining Canada as either a territory or full province (merged with Yukon). But that is a divergence that doesn't lead to a lot of butterflies, and that was intentional.

As I mentioned pretty early in the thread, I'm interested in a "reclaim the birthright" scenario where a stronger Canada is needed. WW1 has to happen and the CP have to win. Britain's general strike in 1925 leads to a socialist revolution, the Great Depression immediately follows, and then France (and later Spain) has a civil war that sees the socialists win there too. It's Kaiserreich-esque, but my white whale is finding a way to make that all plausible. It may be impossible.

That said, a CP victory could lead Britain to invest more in the Dominions 1918-25 in preparation for another European war, and Canada needing more manpower to take a bigger share of Imperial defense could help shift opinions on immigration after the war -- could that open the door to another immigration wave 1918-25? For instance, if an Italy has a civil war immediately follows WW1 and Canada is open to accepting refugees now, that's potentially hundreds of thousands right? And if Ukraine is under Germany rather than the Soviets, could conditions there cause plausible mass migration similar to the 1900-1914 era?

Then turmoil in Britain means ~2 million British refugees post-1925. Turmoil in France and Spain means the larger Quebec you talked about could happen as hundreds of thousands of conservative, catholic latins settle in Quebec.

So, what could happen between 1856 and 1914 that would increase Canada's population without averting WW1, and what could happen in the aftermath of WW1 that could again start massively inflating the population -- all while remaining plausible. Or is that just impossible and this idea is beyond the pale? If that's the case I think some of the other, earlier PODs (or avoiding WW1 entirely) are the way to go.

 

[Fir Street]

Also what's the "NEP"? Not familiar with that acronym. Also "WCS/WTI"?

This

National Energy Program - Wikipedia​

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › National_Energy_Prog...

 

[LoftonHenderson]

Okay focusing in on the main points made in this thread so far, I think the question I would pose to you all is:

"How to make, in particular, the underdeveloped and under-settled regions of 1. Northern Ontario (without GBSC), 2. Alberta, and 3. Northern British Columbia more economically attractive to migrants (and therefore more densely populated) between the 1856 POD when Canada gains Alaska and 1914 when the Third Wave of migration ends due to WWI?"

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Okay focusing in on the main points made in this thread so far, I think the question I would pose to you all is:

"How to make, in particular, the underdeveloped and under-settled regions of 1. Northern Ontario (without GBSC), 2. Alberta, and 3. Northern British Columbia more economically attractive to migrants (and therefore more densely populated) between the 1856 POD when Canada gains Alaska and 1914 when the Third Wave of migration ends due to WWI?"

Ok so Canada getting Alaska in 1856 implies earlier confederation and earlier opening of the west which is good for the economic and demographic developments that really required the existence of a united BNA. Getting an earlier start on those developments will make Canada significantly more developed, reducing the high rate of emigration in the mid-late 1800s, and can allow the timetable for some later projects to be moved up and possibly succeed without the First World War sweeping out their legs.

For Northern Ontario: Ontario receiving what is now Northern Ontario sooner, and therefore surveying and discovering the Clay Belt sooner. Opening it to settlement sooner, and under the auspices of a more hands-off provincial government rather than the control freak Tory governments of WWI and the Great Depression. Something like the National Transcontinental Railway is also built sooner.

Alberta: Earlier opening of the west kinda covers that in and of itself.*

Northern BC: Earlier opening and faster development of the west results an equivalent to the Grand Trunk Pacific being built sooner, allowing the planned communities along its route to be populated and its plans to develop Prince Rupert.*

*and accelerating the settlement of both provinces will likely lead to more settlement of the Peace River region of northern Alberta and BC.

 

[LoftonHenderson]

Ok so Canada getting Alaska in 1856 implies earlier confederation and earlier opening of the west which is good for the economic and demographic developments that really required the existence of a united BNA. Getting an earlier start on those developments will make Canada significantly more developed, reducing the high rate of emigration in the mid-late 1800s, and can allow the timetable for some later projects to be moved up and possibly succeed without the First World War sweeping out their legs.

For Northern Ontario: Ontario receiving what is now Northern Ontario sooner, and therefore surveying and discovering the Clay Belt sooner. Opening it to settlement sooner, and under the auspices of a more hands-off provincial government rather than the control freak Tory governments of WWI and the Great Depression. Something like the National Transcontinental Railway is also built sooner.

Alberta: Earlier opening of the west kinda covers that in and of itself.*

Northern BC: Earlier opening and faster development of the west results an equivalent to the Grand Trunk Pacific being built sooner, allowing the planned communities along its route to be populated and its plans to develop Prince Rupert.*

*and accelerating the settlement of both provinces will likely lead to more settlement of the Peace River region of northern Alberta and BC.

Reducing emigration is definitely one way to increase population and development. The economic powerhouse of the U.S. will always be a big draw to potential migrants, but that's relative depending on Canadian population and development.

Another way is to increase birthrates as @AlexanderDragon mentioned, though that's more relevant for the 20th century and I'm focusing on the 19th. As I understand it 19th century birthrates were already pretty dang high (but so was infant mortality), and there's not much any Canadian PODs can plausibly do to change that.

I guess I misspoke when I said "Canada gets Alaska in 1856" -- I meant to say that Britain gets Alaska in the Crimean War peace deal and later gives it to Canada alla NW Territories and Yukon OTL. So I wasn't intending an earlier confederation. That said, going off what you said, what would have had to happen for Ontario to get Northern Ontario sooner?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I guess I misspoke when I said "Canada gets Alaska in 1856" -- I meant to say that Britain gets Alaska in the Crimean War peace deal and later gives it to Canada alla NW Territories and Yukon OTL. So I wasn't intending an earlier confederation. That said, going off what you said, what would have had to happen for Ontario to get Northern Ontario sooner?

Not sure. I think you really do need to have earlier Confederation if you want to demographically wank Canada.

 

[TheMann]

Not sure. I think you really do need to have earlier Confederation if you want to demographically wank Canada.

If you're aiming for bigger than 60-70 million Canadians in TTL's 2024 I agree with him, @LoftonHenderson . It would not be difficult to make the Crimean War settlement giving Alaska to the British Empire (and quite quickly to Canada) work even with an earlier Confederation.

As far as how to increase the population between 1856 and 1914, if Canada is prepared to take in Native Canadians as equals what you could do is have Native Americans side with the Confederacy in the American Civil War out of a desire for payback for the Trail of Tears, leading to explicit discrimination after the Union victory. This rage and explicit discrimination that results from it not only effects the former five civilized tribes but all Native Americans as the veterans of the Civil War spread across the continent, leading to a sizable diaspora ending up in Canada. This creates its own issues but is an option available.

Second option I can think of is that the United States' nativist streak that led to its immigration laws blows up rather earlier, leading to larger numbers of arrivals (particularly from Italy and Scandinavia) going to Canada, particularly in the period after the CPR begins construction across the Prairies. The CPR was quick to establish branch lines and communities off of its trunk routes that led directly to settlers setting up off of these branches, and it's entirely possible (though not easy, admittedly) to make the newcomers locate in areas that were at the time sparsely populated, such as Northern Ontario and Manitoba north and east of Lake Winnipeg. The Clay Belt isn't really an option for farmers owing to the short growing season (this may be different once greenhouses are an option) but the region is full of both lumber and minerals, so you could very likely get some level of settlement there. This nativist streak would have to be counteracted by Canada but that was being done in any case so I don't see that as a big issue.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Clay Belt isn't really an option for farmers owing to the short growing season (this may be different once greenhouses are an option)

Actually, feedstock grows fine there, and the land makes for good pastures. That's what the farms on the Quebec half of the Clay Belt were doing. Ontario was just really dumb in its fixation on having a captive prairie province.

 

[TheMann]

Actually, feedstock grows fine there, and the land makes for good pastures. That's what the farms on the Quebec half of the Clay Belt were doing. Ontario was just really dumb in its fixation on having a captive prairie province.

Fair enough, but is it possible to turn the Clay Belt into a ranchers paradise, and if so does that allow for larger-scale settlement? I'm not going to say no, but it would make sense to have lots of other reasons to have people there beyond animal ranching. Maybe we can make horse farms turn up in large numbers there? A meat packing industry?

Beyond that, with the massive amounts of minerals that exist in the Abitibi-Timiskaming regions, could it be possible to use these mines to establish industries to use them in these areas? And beyond that, what about doing the same where there are other minerals? Instead of exporting iron ore from the Labrador Trough in vast amounts, why not ship it to steel mills in Sept-Iles or Port Cartier (or Quebec City) and import coal from Nova Scotia and nickel and other alloying minerals from Northern Ontario and make steel in enormous quantities? Likewise, why not develop the immense hydropower of Quebec earlier, have Ontario do the same and develop far more mineral refining and smelting operations in Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Fair enough, but is it possible to turn the Clay Belt into a ranchers paradise, and if so does that allow for larger-scale settlement? I'm not going to say no, but it would make sense to have lots of other reasons to have people there beyond animal ranching. Maybe we can make horse farms turn up in large numbers there? A meat packing industry?

Yes the Quebec portion of it is significantly more populous and has sizeable urban areas like Rouyn-Noranda, and in addition to meat packing the ranching there also lends itself to cheese factories.

Beyond that, with the massive amounts of minerals that exist in the Abitibi-Timiskaming regions, could it be possible to use these mines to establish industries to use them in these areas?

The forestry, mining, industrial, and energy production* potential of the region was also badly neglected by the Ontarian governments' efforts to settle the Clay Belt in the early 20s and 1930s. The fixation on wheat to the exclusion of all else was entirely self-defeating.

*the provincial government's efforts to electrify Kapuskasing fell so far behind schedule that the American paper firm that was trying to set up a pulp mill there said f*ck it and built its own hydro plant.

 

[PolishMagnet]

My suggestion, at least for Hamilton and the Golden Horseshoe - don't rip out the streetcars. If you avoid that, you prevent a lot of the awful suburb-driven growth/crash. Avoid the disaster of Jackson Square. You do that? You leave Hamilton with a meaningful downtown and transit links which can be expanded and integrated into GO when that whole thing picks up.

It should protect the golden horseshoe from the kind of collapse we saw when steel fell apart.

 

[ArtosStark]

The Clay Belt isn't really an option for farmers owing to the short growing season

Due to moisture? Because I can pretty much guarantee that the time between freezes is longer than in the Peace Country and they manage grain there, though with a strong mix of livestock.

 

[TheMann]

My suggestion, at least for Hamilton and the Golden Horseshoe - don't rip out the streetcars. If you avoid that, you prevent a lot of the awful suburb-driven growth/crash. Avoid the disaster of Jackson Square. You do that? You leave Hamilton with a meaningful downtown and transit links which can be expanded and integrated into GO when that whole thing picks up.

It should protect the golden horseshoe from the kind of collapse we saw when steel fell apart.

That would make a lot of sense, and when the idea of the RT for Hamilton comes up for the love of God build it, and when the time comes extend it as much as is possible, preferably to McMaster and Dundas, Stoney Creek and the Hamilton Airport. Make it work as the city's transit backbone alongside the streetcars and you'll be doing yourself a lot of favors.

 

[TheMann]

Yes the Quebec portion of it is significantly more populous and has sizeable urban areas like Rouyn-Noranda, and in addition to meat packing the ranching there also lends itself to cheese factories.

That makes sense, and it would absolutely help if CN would keep the National Transcontinental Railway line that runs right through the region active. Enough forestry, meat, lumber and mineral traffic would make that happen, though.

The forestry, mining, industrial, and energy production* potential of the region was also badly neglected by the Ontarian governments' efforts to settle the Clay Belt in the early 20s and 1930s. The fixation on wheat to the exclusion of all else was entirely self-defeating.

*the provincial government's efforts to electrify Kapuskasing fell so far behind schedule that the American paper firm that was trying to set up a pulp mill there said f*ck it and built its own hydro plant.

See above. It would make sense to first go "Okay, what can do to make this area succeed?" Figure out all of the options available, and then work on as many of them as you can. If wheat isn't working, do something else. The vast timber resources of the region mean lumber is an obvious one, and by the early 20th Century the known gold of the region will surely lead to a lot of other mining operations for copper, nickel, zinc, silver and other mineral resources.

 

[LoftonHenderson]

Okay so maybe British Alaska accelerates the BNA a few years and ITTL Confederation occurs in 1862. Combined fears of renewed conflict with Russia and American instability leads to a stronger Canada right out the gate with the intention of stewardship of the territories intended to pass to Canada as soon as possible. Ontario gets its OTL part of Rupert's Land upon Confederation rather than much later. The CPR gets built 5 years earlier, maybe Red River Rebellion and Manitoba happen on a faster timeline as well. I really don't see a way to get Canada to overcome its aversion to non-British settlers or be friendlier to indigenous peoples.

We've identified some area that have tremendous capacity for further development and population. Better administration would help clearly. But given this tentative timeline, what concrete events/decisions could take place to increase Canada's population between 1856 and 1914?

 

[foresterab]

Due to moisture? Because I can pretty much guarantee that the time between freezes is longer than in the Peace Country and they manage grain there, though with a strong mix of livestock.

The Hearst clay belt is more moisture limited than the Peace region. There are also different wind and climate patterns that affect spring thaw.

The Peace region is good for some crops and varies from excellent to piss poor lands depending on topsoil depths/soil type/drainage. Lowland tamarack swamp is not the same as silty river valley upland sites. Hearst area has the same shallow topsoils so it’s not “wheat country” but ranching/fringe country.