What happens to land prices during western separation(or not)?

[grassfarmer]

I don’t see how you can say most land, other than 9.7%, is owned by the Crown, or Queen of England, when the Dominions Land Act gave ownership to homesteaders upon meeting the requirements.

Agreed - I know when I sold up in AB the money went into my bank account not Liz's.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

On the topic of land prices during separation, Blaithin is on the same track as I am. The economic turmoil of separation would be disastrous. Think of creating new trade agreements from scratch from a new country, finding ways to export our product, establishing a national bank and currency. All that uncertainty is really bad, and lasts for years. It's not a process that happens over a few months. Some farmers are broken by a couple bad years, nevermind 5-10 years worth of secession and establishment / entry into statehood. Separation (and then joining another country) takes time, and in the meantime, we suffer.

There are countries who would not support an independent Western Canada. They have their own independence movements that they wish to suppress, so why would they recognize and support us? That would lend credibility to their own movements. So we lose potential markets.

Then, if we're independent with our own currency, we're even more privy to the fluctuations of a petrodollar. Oil is high, economy rolling well? Currency value inflates, grain prices go down. When the opposite happens, our commodities go up but then try to buy farm equipment at a reasonable price. That kind of yo-yo-ing isn't good for investing in land. Bargain basement prices all around!

Under the scenario you lay out, the outcome would be at least as bad as what you and Blaithlin are expecting. Independence, or a long messy drawn out affair would be the worst possible scenarios. Even if the eventual outcome is joining the US, and an economic boom, most of us would have lost everything by the time that happens, not hard to have a boom starting over from scratch, also hard to participate if you have nothing...

Which is why neither of those two options are even a consideration to anyone with common sense. When asked directly about this issue, Peter Zeihan stated that Alberta would be accepted with full statehood within a few months if we asked, and Sask would be there before the ink dries. It would have to be a quick painless transition such as that to avoid massive pain.

And Blaithlin, your suggestion of advocating for change from within, is certainly admirable, but it comes back to my earlier comment about those with the ability to do math. It is not mathematically possible that the west can affect change from within the current political structure, regardless of who is in power, or where their sympathies lie. It is political suicide given the population distribution of the country. One party may pay more lip service to it than the other, but none dare actually do anything to alienate the voting base in the ROC.

[Blaithin]

Do you think America is more mathematically inclined towards its rural population? Last I checked their urban centres grossly outnumbered rural areas as well.

Also a quick look at the complete wreck their Ag industry is facing with weather alone, how much support do you really think there would be for you as a 51st state? Even if statehood was seamlessly adopted (because all things in politics are smooth and seamless, especially when politicians say they will be). The government will give relief to farmers in trouble? Sure, when such a large portion of their farmers are either flooded out or in drought, I’m sure there’ll be lots of relief to go around for us. Plus their Ag industry is highly crutched up by subsidies when compared to ours.

Maybe that’s what you want? The ability to get a higher profit from an inflated model with no actual bearing on what the market is paying. Yes in Canada our products are generally undervalued but at least we aren’t being held afloat by a thin cloud of government subsidies.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Do you think America is more mathematically inclined towards its rural population? Last I checked their urban centres grossly outnumbered rural areas as well.

Also a quick look at the complete wreck their Ag industry is facing with weather alone, how much support do you really think there would be for you as a 51st state? Even if statehood was seamlessly adopted (because all things in politics are smooth and seamless, especially when politicians say they will be). The government will give relief to farmers in trouble? Sure, when such a large portion of their farmers are either flooded out or in drought, I’m sure there’ll be lots of relief to go around for us. Plus their Ag industry is highly crutched up by subsidies when compared to ours.

Maybe that’s what you want? The ability to get a higher profit from an inflated model with no actual bearing on what the market is paying. Yes in Canada our products are generally undervalued but at least we aren’t being held afloat by a thin cloud of government subsidies.

Every state has equal representation, regardless of population, which has its own obvious pitfalls, but does give rural areas much more clout than representation by population alone.

The biggest reason is the ongoing collapse of the world (free) trade order as we have known it all our lives. The US will literally be the only market able to dictate who buys their products, and whose products they are willing to buy, if any, in an every shrinking world economy. Being on the outside of that looking in will not be good for agriculture, let alone any other industry. Like I said in my first post, the third option is a normalization of trade and responsible governance, if you think both of those are likely, then disregard the entire conversation.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The biggest reason is the ongoing collapse of the world (free) trade order as we have known it all our lives. The US will literally be the only market able to dictate who buys their products, and whose products they are willing to buy, if any, in an every shrinking world economy. Being on the outside of that looking in will not be good for agriculture, let alone any other industry. Like I said in my first post, the third option is a normalization of trade and responsible governance, if you think both of those are likely, then disregard the entire conversation.

The fact that no one acknowledges or responds to this post tells us all we need to know about the level of preparation most farmers have made in regards to very real and imminent existential threats to their entire livelihood and value of their assets. Which completely explains why so many do not concern themselves with the consequences a separation movement would have on their operation and assets.

The vast majority still cling to the desperate hope that the Trump era is a temporary aberration, and that everything will go back to the way it should be as soon as the next election is over. And by the time they realize that this is one of those paradigm shifts, it will be too late.

[grassfarmer]

The fact that no one acknowledges or responds to this post tells us all we need to know about the level of preparation most farmers have made in regards to very real and imminent existential threats to their entire livelihood and value of their assets.

Or it tells us that you are just talking nonsense.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Or it tells us that you are just talking nonsense.

So, your long term business plan revolves around Trump losing the next election, sanity prevailing, the end of trade wars and trade disruption, and markets to return to what they were a few short years ago? That is certainly the best case for Canada in the short and medium term. And if you put good odds on that happening, then by all means, don't consider any other worst case scenarios. It would have to also include considering the shale boom to be a short term fad that too shall pass.

[blackpowder]

Paradigm shift? Explain please.

.Fixing the Senate would be a huge change and we can't even get that done.
Sad bastard.

The new gen of farmers know exactly what there net worth is.
And would cash in and do something else if nothing else.

[grassfarmer]

Politicians come and go, trade disruptions come and go. Been the same for hundreds of years in agriculture, don't fret over what you can't control. You deal with the circumstances as they occur and don't waste too much time on speculating the "what if's" as your chances of predicting correctly what will happen in future are about as good as predicting next month's weather.

[tweety]

There is much debate from the 1999 supreme court case with the Quebec ref and the Clarity Act as even if AB voted for secession if the Gov of Canada would just veto it anyway. Also there is the debate of whether the other provinces need to approve the secession as well. It's all a bunch of guesses and maybe's.

I don't think AB5 land prices are going to change much because nothing is going to change in AB. Can't even build a pipeline. Unless they diversified - like that is going to happen.

[tweety]

Agreed - I know when I sold up in AB the money went into my bank account not Liz's.

No Canadian can own land as there is no provision in the Act. The ownership factor is 1. You have tenure to the land, and that is what you were paid for.

"All physical land in Canada is the property of the Crown, Queen Elisabeth 11. There is no provision in the Canada Act, or in the Constitution Act 1982 which amends it, for any Canadian to own any physical land in Canada. All that Canadians may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. Land defined as ‘Crown land’ in Canada, and administered by the Federal Government and the Provinces, is merely land not ‘dedicated’ or assigned in freehold tenure. Freehold is tenure, not ownership. Freehold land is ‘held’ not ‘owned’."

[furrowtickler]

No Canadian can own land as there is no provision in the Act. The ownership factor is 1. You have tenure to the land, and that is what you were paid for.

"All physical land in Canada is the property of the Crown, Queen Elisabeth 11. There is no provision in the Canada Act, or in the Constitution Act 1982 which amends it, for any Canadian to own any physical land in Canada. All that Canadians may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. Land defined as ‘Crown land’ in Canada, and administered by the Federal Government and the Provinces, is merely land not ‘dedicated’ or assigned in freehold tenure. Freehold is tenure, not ownership. Freehold land is ‘held’ not ‘owned’."

Which absolutely scares the heck out of me with Trudeau in power and his love for UN policy. He has to go in October for that reason alone .... all the rest of his b/S antics are simply a distraction