Canada General Discussion

[tpfkaw]

Excuse me for interrupting the conversation, but would someone explain the primary differences between he Liberal Party and the NDP?

Not a Canadian, but the NDP is to the left of the Liberals.  The Liberals are essentially non-ideological, they tend to support leftist social policy and whatever economic policy they feel will win them the most votes (in the 90s they supported tax and spending cuts - but were elected on a platform of protectionism; in the recent election they literally copied most of the NDP platform and had it backfire on them).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Short term no, medium term maybe.

[tpfkaw]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

[tpfkaw]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

"Nunavut's larder of "country food" — caribou, seals, fish and other animals — is there for the taking, but only if people can afford the snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition and gear needed to travel safely. Elliott estimates hunting costs about $150 a day."

That doesn't sound like "traditional hunting" to me.

[tpfkaw]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

"Nunavut's larder of "country food" — caribou, seals, fish and other animals — is there for the taking, but only if people can afford the snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition and gear needed to travel safely. Elliott estimates hunting costs about $150 a day."

That doesn't sound like "traditional hunting" to me.

OK, do you suggest that feeding and using a dog team would be any cheaper/less time consuming?

That's why they have their "emotional attachment to the land," is it not?  Also, they were able to afford it for a few thousand years.

[tpfkaw]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

"Nunavut's larder of "country food" — caribou, seals, fish and other animals — is there for the taking, but only if people can afford the snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition and gear needed to travel safely. Elliott estimates hunting costs about $150 a day."

That doesn't sound like "traditional hunting" to me.

OK, do you suggest that feeding and using a dog team would be any cheaper/less time consuming?

That's why they have their "emotional attachment to the land," is it not?  Also, they were able to afford it for a few thousand years.

"Afford?" I don't know if that's an appropriate word, considering their society wasn't exactly capitalist. I would hope that you can see why going back to a pre-colonization traditional way of life isn't exactly an option.

They can't have their cake and eat it too and expect other people to pay for the cake as well.  That's beyond unreasonable.