Inuit Organize Widespread Protest Over Hunger And Food Costs

Hz0YYkvG_Lg

Full story at Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html)

They're more than welcome to move to bigger cities.

They're more than welcome to move to bigger cities.

Your drastic and inappropriate simplification in this matter only reveals your ignorance and/or arrogance on this particular subject.

Your drastic and inappropriate simplification in this matter only reveals your ignorance and/or arrogance on this particular subject.

It's a simple problem.

If they aren't happy with the prices of food, then they can either live off the land, get a better paying job, or move to a place they can afford.

It's not like it's cheap to move goods to the Arctic, either. Fuel and drivers cost a lot, plus they lose out on the economies of scale. On top of that, many roads are only passable a few weeks out of the year.

Harper should be subsidizing their food until a road can be built to the North,
As much as I detest this kind of thing happening in Canada,
I'm hoping that the people that respond to this thread don't get this thread locked.

Don't fight about these people,
Please keep your replies within normal shocked perimeters.

Keep them alive.

Harper should be subsidizing their food until a road can be built to the North,
As much as I detest this kind of thing happening in Canada,
I'm hoping that the people that respond to this thread don't get this thread locked.

Don't fight about these people,
Please keep your replies within normal shocked perimeters.

Keep them alive.

Seriously? The rest of us are obliged to pay for the food of people who choose, by their own free will, to live in a barren wasteland?

That makes zero sense at all.

It's akin to me saying that I'd like to live in the desert, and expecting everyone else to pay for it.

Seriously? The rest of us are obliged to pay for the food of people who choose, by their own free will, to live in a barren wasteland?

That makes zero sense at all.

It's akin to me saying that I'd like to live in the desert, and expecting everyone else to pay for it.

Why build a new territory if you aren't ready to equalize the cost of living in it?
Perhaps Harper should have thought about that before allowing the territory to form itself.

Having to move is such a defeatist attitude,
Just because you can't afford to eat doesn't mean you should disband a territory and move.

Why build a new territory if you aren't ready to equalize the cost of living in it?
Perhaps Harper should have thought about that before allowing the territory to form itself.

Build a new territory? Allowing the territory to form itself?

Nunavut was formed in 1999, when it separated from the NWT. As much as I dislike Harper, he didn't have a thing to do with it.

Neither of those is a cogent argument for publicly funding a futile settlement.

Build a new territory? Allowing the territory to form itself?

Nunavut was formed in 1999, when it separated from the NWT. As much as I dislike Harper, he didn't have a thing to do with it.

Neither of those is a cogent argument for publicly funding a futile settlement.

So the solution is to ignore them then

So the solution is to ignore them then

By helping them move to a more hospitable part of the country. We have a duty to help people, but not in whatever way pleases them. It must be in the best interests of the nation.

Seriously? The rest of us are obliged to pay for the food of people who choose, by their own free will, to live in a barren wasteland?

That makes zero sense at all.

It's akin to me saying that I'd like to live in the desert, and expecting everyone else to pay for it.

Do you think all people living in the north helicoptered in out of nowhere and decided they were going to choose to live in a resource rich land that suddenly became a hot commodity for extraction? Do you think your strategy of centralization wasn't already attempted 50 years ago and uprooted tens of thousands of Canadians whose only "misfortune" was being born in a remote town?
People are being forced to compensate through the growing pains of towns that expand due to an influx of transient workers who work on extraction projects are a paid better than most people who live there. Not to mention a problem of infrastructure in which incentives are given first and foremost to businesses while research and development of local capacity is being hacked and slashed.
This is not just a problem for those who identify as Inuit, it's a problem for Canadians and it's a problem created by a deep and willful misunderstanding of northern environments and communities.
If you even thought through your terrible an idea you are proposing for a minute you won't be so anxious to defend your position. Look at any historical example of towns being abandoned for centralization and all you'll see is hardship exacerbated by a "not in my back yard" mentality of dealing with migrating communities.
I don't even consider myself an authority to speak on this issue. Not everyone I know up north share these thoughts and there is no single well defined cause. As I've said it's a complicated situation best and oversimplifying it does yourself a disservice.

Once again they failed and it is the rest of Canada's problem ? Please explain that one to me?
So If I over spent on my home, so there for its Canada's problem? No- life moves on.
They wanted to split, so off you go.
Canada sucks until you need us again?
What an over played story with them. The laws don't apply to them, they claim land is thiers when people are already living on it for years
Seriously it is an over done story.

As for north living, how come Yukon is fine, and most of the NWT, if you don't like it move to the populated area like the rest of us

Once again they failed and it is the rest of Canada's problem ? Please explain that one to me?
So If I over spent on my home, so there for its Canada's problem? No- life moves on.
They wanted to split, so off you go.
Canada sucks until you need us again?
What an over played story with them. The laws don't apply to them, they claim land is thiers when people are already living on it for years
Seriously it is an over done story.

As for north living, how come Yukon is fine, and most of the NWT, if you don't like it move to the populated area like the rest of us

Explain how you should care if people are starving? Sorry, if you have no interest in learning compassion I'm not going to waste my time. If you think rugged individualism is the key to existence we have totally different world views.

This isn't a game of win or lose. I'm better off than my neighbor, I win they lose.

Why should you pay for anything that doesn't belong to you? Look around you. Your life is subsidized by the government through your and other peoples taxes. Subsidies to farmers, food producers, oil companies, import and export... YOU didn't pay for that road, everyone did collectively. Your contribution alone wouldn't have gotten the steamroller out of the driveway. Fire, police, medical and civil construction are all paid for collectively. Whether your dollar goes into a road that you personally never have to drive on or a fire you didn't start it's a communal pot of money. The reality of it is that you get to see the direct benefit of a lot of people's aggregated input. Money added to a system doesn't simply go into other peoples pockets, it's designed to improve the quality of life of whole neighborhoods and communities. But you think this is all normal. You don't question where that money came from as long as you see it getting used roughly in a way that suits you OR probably more accurately, you think we're better off paying NO taxes (good luck with that). You are part of a country. It's a big community. Deal with it.

You over spent on your home? What are your options? Bankruptcy or riding out the storm. Either way, you're only able to do that because of the cozy infrastructure that's already in place.

Northern communities have been treated so badly by the federal government that the only way they felt they could represent the interests of their people was self governance but that doesn't mean the federal government would allow the single largest bit of resource rich landmass they control up and walk away. So they get to form a governing body the hard way: after the rest of Canada has already enjoyed a seat at the table for a minimum of 60 years and knowing that "just leaving" isn't an option.

The protest, despite what it looks like isn't about a handout, it's about fixing problems with the system in place that are only coming to the forefront now because the government is taking an interest in northern resource development. And what you are complaining about in taxes. You won't notice. Trust me. If the conservative government can hand our banks $117 billion dollars under the table during the recession without taxpayers noticing, this won't even make your wallet budge.

So we might disagree on how best to fix these problems but your outlook, and particularly the comments in this thread, aren't constructive.

The banks paid back the loans- like normally you would expect instead of an inbred learning of give me give me..
Also if I can't afford my place then I have one option sell sell sell or get a second job like others not cry with my hand out or claim its my house and therefore government should pay for it, if my roof has a hole who fixes it? I do not the tax payers, as for farmers they deserve hands outs as they work like slaves to make ends meet and put food on my table - so your points invalid.
It's not up to tax payers and government to pay and pay every time they fail or claim something..
I was brought up to help those who are willing to learn or help themselves not those who only expect free money.
There is no such thing as free lunch

Not just food--Florida orange juice and not even in frozen concentrate form!! Give me a break!! Agreed with John Clay. If they're starving, then provide them with enough food to last until they decide to move where prices are reasonable--or switch to walrus and ptarmigan meat.

Only quicker development of northern resources can effectively improve supply chains without forcing others to pay for a northern lifestyle.

Two generations ago they were living off the land. Then we came along. I'd say we have considerable responsibility to help.

The banks paid back the loans- like normally you would expect instead of an inbred learning of give me give me..
Also if I can't afford my place then I have one option sell sell sell or get a second job like others not cry with my hand out or claim its my house and therefore government should pay for it, if my roof has a hole who fixes it? I do not the tax payers, as for farmers they deserve hands outs as they work like slaves to make ends meet and put food on my table - so your points invalid.
It's not up to tax payers and government to pay and pay every time they fail or claim something..
I was brought up to help those who are willing to learn or help themselves not those who only expect free money.
There is no such thing as free lunch

I barely know where to start. For one, your rhetoric is atrocious. Free lunch? Who is asking for anything for free? The point of the protest is that the government subsidies to the food distributor may not even be reaching the consumer.

If you think the answer is for everyone to jump ship from a small community there's no one to sell a house TO, and forget claiming it as equity at the bank if 1200 -7000 other people are doing the same thing. That's a ghost town for you. So your point is invalid. And second job? Ha! If there is a job available, you better believe someone is working it. And yes, some people do end up with multiple jobs, with terrible pay, because they need to feed families of relatives who have committed suicide or who've died trying to provide for their families, either through harvesting from the land or other dangerous jobs. Even feeding elders who have no relatives left in the community either because they have, as you suggested, moved away, or are no longer able to support them. There can and should be community programs for that. It's not just families, it's not a certain group of people, it's everyone in these communities who benefits if we come up with a solution.

And of course your assumption only proves my point. You think farmers deserve subsidies, but a subsidy is only there to help stabilize YOUR food source during hard times for them. They don't loose everything and can continue to sell crops again to you when their yield is up. There isn't that same safety net up north. The people I know don't want to be on social assistance but it's that or lose their home and starve. And you think they can just move to another city with nothing and start a new life?

Your whole "give a mouse a cookie" argument is, frankly, a gross misestimation of the populations you are trying to pigeonhole. Your lovely image of people sitting around with a hand out is just as offensive when talking about people who live on your street as it is when talking about people elsewhere in Canada. Your comments reveal you've got a single minded determination to categorize the poor as lazy - forget substance abuse, mental illness, or the hundred other factors that impoverished families face on a day to day basis that puts them in harms way. Unemployment rates worldwide are staggering. How can you even be so presumptuous as to think you've got "the answer"?

There are ongoing programs in every community to build local capacity for people to feed, clothe, educate and better the entire community, not just beneficiaries, and the current government has decided to defund most of the programs that focus on food security that aren't just handing money to companies which, there are allegations, that sometimes don't even make it to the consumer. Who is to know when that information isn't made publicly accessible?

You pay out of pocket for home repairs, so do the people you are railing against. What you aren't getting is that the wood you use to repair the hole is subsidized and just like the gas used to drive the transport truck and that goes into your car so you can make it to the hardware store. As for the extra it would take so parents can afford diapers, baby formula and food up north? So they can choose whether or not to stay and practice the culture of their parents and grandparents regardless of what people like you think? I'd pay for that. Happily.

Not just food--Florida orange juice and not even in frozen concentrate form!! Give me a break!! Agreed with John Clay. If they're starving, then provide them with enough food to last until they decide to move where prices are reasonable--or switch to walrus and ptarmigan meat.

Only quicker development of northern resources can effectively improve supply chains without forcing others to pay for a northern lifestyle.

This is unbelievable. I feel like I've travelled back in time.

Do you understand that these are not welfare states? These are cities, communities, there are private sector businesses who import these goods. Who are you to judge the community by what the business decides is profitable to import?

Once again this crap argument, if you can't afford baby formula, go hunt a deer?

Communities have centralized, some chose to, some were by force, but the end result is that the population increases, while the local wildlife population fluctuates, a problem exacerbated by centralization, you have to travel farther to get food. So only the more well off can get food, which was less of a problem traditionally when food was more widely distributed amongst the community. Now you have generations growing up without the same values, which are instead replaced with your demented philosophy of rugged individualism. Why share when you can win?

And the development of northern resources thing is a gross simplification too. The problem has been that most companies treat it like the wild west. And their quick fix solution is food allowances for the workers they fly in, further legitimizing and driving up the prices. Then when they've screwed up and pull the plug it leaves a vacuum. It's not that we just need more business, we need more stable business and sustainable practices.

This is unbelievable. I feel like I've travelled back in time.

Do you understand that these are not welfare states? These are cities, communities, there are private sector businesses who import these goods. Who are you to judge the community by what the business decides is profitable to import?

Once again this crap argument, if you can't afford baby formula, go hunt a deer?

Communities have centralized, some chose to, some were by force, but the end result is that the population increases, while the local wildlife population fluctuates, a problem exacerbated by centralization, you have to travel farther to get food. So only the more well off can get food, which was less of a problem traditionally when food was more widely distributed amongst the community. Now you have generations growing up without the same values, which are instead replaced with your demented philosophy of rugged individualism. Why share when you can win?

And the development of northern resources thing is a gross simplification too. The problem has been that most companies treat it like the wild west. And their quick fix solution is food allowances for the workers they fly in, further legitimizing and driving up the prices. Then when they've screwed up and pull the plug it leaves a vacuum. It's not that we just need more business, we need more stable business and sustainable practices.

I don't care what the storekeepers bring in. I just question the notion that something is "wrong" with orange juice at that price so far from normal supply chains.

We won't get stable businesses there. There is nothing happening in those areas but the development of resources which fluctuate wildly in value. Florida orange juice (not from concentrate) will always have an exorbitant price above the Arctic circle. The answer to this community's problem is not devising a way to make orange juice cheaper.

For the record, I don't believe agriculture should be subsidized either.

If the government of Nunavut wants to pay to import food, as a resident of Ontario I have no qualms with that.

However, once you start a "food price equalization program" why not equalize rents and housing prices across the country?

I don't care what the storekeepers bring in. I just question the notion that something is "wrong" with orange juice at that price so far from normal supply chains.

We won't get stable businesses there. There is nothing happening in those areas but the development of resources which fluctuate wildly in value. Florida orange juice (not from concentrate) will always have an exorbitant price above the Arctic circle. The answer to this community's problem is not devising a way to make orange juice cheaper.

For the record, I don't believe agriculture should be subsidized either.

If the government of Nunavut wants to pay to import food, as a resident of Ontario I have no qualms with that.

However, once you start a "food price equalization program" why not equalize rents and housing prices across the country?

You speak way too confidently about "the answer to the problem" when you haven't a clue what the problem is. In the short term the solution may very well be to subsidize food costs. But in the long run granted it may be better to simply have greater transparency as to what the "real" cost of bringing in food stuffs, potentially starting co-ops to reduce the overhead, more local production... who knows... there is a lot of research going on as to what options may work on each individual local level. But to say you know the solution is just plain arrogant.

And if you're going to argue, at least keep on task. There are all sorts of "equalizations" that happen across the board, call them what you want, from power to lumber to food, so don't pretend like doing it once for an indeterminate period of time is somehow a monstrous burden on our economy or some slippery slope to socialism. And we're certainly not even talking about the scale of some of the transfers that have become completely normalized.

You speak way too confidently about "the answer to the problem" when you haven't a clue what the problem is. In the short term the solution may very well be to subsidize food costs. But in the long run granted it may be better to simply have greater transparency as to what the "real" cost of bringing in food stuffs, potentially starting co-ops to reduce the overhead, more local production... who knows... there is a lot of research going on as to what options may work on each individual local level. But to say you know the solution is just plain arrogant.

I'll rephrase it. The only long-term solution acceptable to me. There is a "real cost" associated with bringing the food in by airplane. However, remaining in these communities is not an essential component of any solution--that's only your non-negotiable item. This situation isn't new. Only the protests are. These high prices have been reported for the past 50 years. The cost of food in Barrow, Alaska is about three times what it is in the contiguous states, which is to be expected. All of the studies and research and options over five decades have resulted in market pricing of food. That's about as transparent as you can get.

And if you're going to argue, at least keep on task. There are all sorts of "equalizations" that happen across the board, call them what you want, from power to lumber to food, so don't pretend like doing it once for an indeterminate period of time is somehow a monstrous burden on our economy or some slippery slope to socialism. And we're certainly not even talking about the scale of some of the transfers that have become completely normalized.

I don't support ANY of the equalizations. And I certainly don't support one that involves keeping people alive in some sort of bizarre northern bio-dome and pretending that food imported from Florida should cost the same in Nunavut as it does in Winnipeg or Toronto.

I would support only one government solution for the aboriginal people living in these communities--a one-time buy-out of any property they may own to encourage them to live elsewhere.

.

I have clients in huntsville, I was shocked what it cost to buy food there; then my client said its the cost of doing business - trucking fee..
so yes the food is more - but I don't see any one moving out in mass or protesting?

I also have clients that live on remote islands in the Caribbean - i was very much in shock with the cost of food ( avg lunch is $50 ) - when I asked the clients they say the chicken - came on the same plane you do and we laugh about it.. - now I don't see them running...

If people can't make the best of where they live move.. no one would ever help me if I can not where I live or food.. they would say - sell what you have and find better.. { yes you could find this heartless - but if we constantly have to pay for them, then they should move closer and we will pay them to live and make them clean our cities for pay back or other jobs }

Why is it now that a person who is a fisher man in PEI or NS or NL, must now move to find a job or risk losing UI or welfare? rules are rules.. - they should stop being above the laws..

Heartless, short sighted, needlessly antagonistic, take your pick... Not a single point you've made has made me feel any different about this nor do your analogies seem to offer any insight other than to say you seem to be fine with the way things are. I cannot agree. If anything it's got me wondering if it wouldn't be in Canada's best interest to invest more in food equalization based on geography even if that comes in the form of short term food subsidies and long term infrastructure. I'd consider that an investment in our future.

As for your other suggestion as to full scale evacuation of the communities I anyone who can't afford to live there, why stop there? Can't afford to live in Red Deer? Toronto? Huntsville? Deer lake? Food costing to much? Get out! Might I suggest voicing these opinions at your local food bank? Good a place as any to start intimidating low income families and calling them lazy. Or you could keep tilting at windmills behind your keyboard. In fact I think I prefer you do the latter so they can deal with the very real problems they face, rather than deal with another ignorant voice shouting them down from the peanut gallery.

Harper should be subsidizing their food until a road can be built to the North,
As much as I detest this kind of thing happening in Canada,
I'm hoping that the people that respond to this thread don't get this thread locked.

Don't fight about these people,
Please keep your replies within normal shocked perimeters.

Keep them alive.

Uh no it would need to be the provincial/territorial government building a road not the feds it is a simple matter of jurisdiction so if you want to blame someone start by blaming the right person.

Heartless, short sighted, needlessly antagonistic, take your pick... Not a single point you've made has made me feel any different about this nor do your analogies seem to offer any insight other than to say you seem to be fine with the way things are. I cannot agree. If anything it's got me wondering if it wouldn't be in Canada's best interest to invest more in food equalization based on geography even if that comes in the form of short term food subsidies and long term infrastructure. I'd consider that an investment in our future.

It's no investment at all--it's an eternal support program. There are no guarantees that infrastructure investments will pay off, or reduce food prices. But why stop with Nunavut when Huntsville beckons?

As for your other suggestion as to full scale evacuation of the communities I anyone who can't afford to live there, why stop there? Can't afford to live in Red Deer? Toronto? Huntsville? Deer lake? Food costing to much? Get out!

Absolutely! If you can't afford to live in one community, move to one you can afford. Don't sit within reach of a light switch while cursing the darkness.

Absolutely! If you can't afford to live in one community, move to one you can afford. Don't sit within reach of a light switch while cursing the darkness.

Did you just think of that? or did you borrow it? It sort of has a ring to it.. nice one..

I have an Idea.. how to build infrastructure and bring money to them..
the next G8 and G20 summits should be held there.. WE the Canadians will build what we would need for the summits - which is seems to be a lot, then when we leave - its all theirs and lets see what and how long they use it and say it stopped working again..
I think that is a fair trade off..
they end up with a new city and we end up with a place no one would want to go protest in, in first place :)

.

.

It's no investment at all--it's an eternal support program. There are no guarantees that infrastructure investments will pay off, or reduce food prices. But why stop with Nunavut when Huntsville beckons?



Absolutely! If you can't afford to live in one community, move to one you can afford. Don't sit within reach of a light switch while cursing the darkness.

Ha! Guaranteed investment? Now you are really reaching.

Once again, if you think everyone moving and abandoning all of these towns is "reachable", viable, practical or in any way shape or form a good idea, there's clearly no getting through to you.

That's about it.

We should just sell the land to the Americans, Russians, or Chinese before they help themselves to it.

Blowing Billions on F'ed 35's is a higher priority.

That don't work in the cold no less... What a steal.

Once again, if you think everyone moving and abandoning all of these towns is "reachable", viable, practical or in any way shape or form a good idea, there's clearly no getting through to you.

Some people will choose to stay regardless of how expensive the groceries are. Buy out the ones who agree to leave, let the rest buy groceries at market prices. Any person who chooses to move into the community after this will have no buy-out option.

Wow, that's lunacy. Buying out let's say 4000 homes that would instantly be worthless at +$250,000 ($1b) each is the equivalent of subsidizing each of those households groceries at $500/m for 41 years. Try again.

Typical of the Huffington to print this kind of nonsense; in this case, the Huffers are riding the coat tails of Olivier De Schutter the UN 'food envoy' who thinks we need to tax soda pop.

There's been a food subsidy programme in the north and far north for 50 years. It includes many northern communities in several provinces and not just the Arctic territories.

Nutrition North Canada Food List Announced (http://www.nutritionnorthcanada.ca/mr/2011/nr23574-eng.asp)

Of course the food and everything else here in the south isn't subsidized by massive public investment in highways, ferries and railways. Nope, not one bit. :rolleyes:
Seems like User Pay only applies to someone other than oneself.

Wow, that's lunacy. Buying out let's say 4000 homes that would instantly be worthless at +$250,000 ($1b) each is the equivalent of subsidizing each of those households groceries at $500/m for 41 years. Try again.

Not that I'm advocating MF's solution (I haven't made up my mind about what makes sense to me--this is a hugely complex issue that I have only surface knowledge of) but your numbers are questionable.

First, 250,000 per home seems an unlikely value. There are livable homes in Northern Ontario that are near viable cities and towns for less than 100K. Living where there is no road access has to bring house prices down. Living in substandard housing brings values down. Living where there is no viable economy brings values down.

But let's be generous and assume 100K.

Buying out 4,000 homes costs $400M. That's 16.7 years worth of food, assuming no rises due to inflation. However, subsidizing food becomes an ongoing cost, whereas a buyout is a one-time only cost... so over time, subsidizing food become more expensive.

To me, it seems unlikely that we can find and (key words) successfully implement a way to make all of these communities self-sustaining in just 16 years.

Infrastructure projects? Just planning them and assessing the environmental impact takes years, if not decades. Then they have to be implemented, which takes further decades.

I don't have the answers because it's a complicate problem. But while cheaper is not always better, it is probably cheaper to move people out of the community than to subsidize food--unless there is some other plan in place to increase self-sustainability.

Wow, that's lunacy. Buying out let's say 4000 homes that would instantly be worthless at +$250,000 ($1b) each is the equivalent of subsidizing each of those households groceries at $500/m for 41 years. Try again.

How many do you think would accept the buy-out? On what do you base the price of $250,000? Show me some listings that bear this out.

Even assuming you are correct, your subsidy program costs $984,000,000. You need to build administration costs into this (usually 10 per cent or more--and that's being conservative.) Build in some cost of living at a modest 2% inflation rate, and over 41 years, the investment works heavily in favour of a buy-out.

Tray again.

How many do you think would accept the buy-out? On what do you base the price of $250,000? Show me some listings that bear this out.


How would you assume that they could live in any mid to larger city or any resource boomtown in Canada (where presumably there may be jobs) with anything less than $250K? You can just about buy a 1 bedroom condo in Victoria for that. House for a family? Fahgetaboudit. You can pay $1500+ per month to rent in the oilpatch, if you can find anything.

Of course the food and everything else here in the south isn't subsidized by massive public investment in highways, ferries and railways. Nope, not one bit. :rolleyes:
Seems like User Pay only applies to someone other than oneself.

Not the issue, besides, the south also has manufacturing, farming, other types of commerce plus population volumes to justify infrastructure for goods which move in multi-directional patterns. Supplying a tiny remote community on Baffin Island is a unidirectional movement. A carrier will charge both ways, even though the return trip is empty. Fuel costs are driving prices to unprecedented levels as operating costs are driven higher and higher.

Not that I'm advocating MF's solution (I haven't made up my mind about what makes sense to me--this is a hugely complex issue that I have only surface knowledge of) but your numbers are questionable.

First, 250,000 per home seems an unlikely value. There are livable homes in Northern Ontario that are near viable cities and towns for less than 100K. Living where there is no road access has to bring house prices down. Living in substandard housing brings values down. Living where there is no viable economy brings values down.

But let's be generous and assume 100K.

Buying out 4,000 homes costs $400M. That's 16.7 years worth of food, assuming no rises due to inflation. However, subsidizing food becomes an ongoing cost, whereas a buyout is a one-time only cost... so over time, subsidizing food become more expensive.

To me, it seems unlikely that we can find and (key words) successfully implement a way to make all of these communities self-sustaining in just 16 years.

Infrastructure projects? Just planning them and assessing the environmental impact takes years, if not decades. Then they have to be implemented, which takes further decades.

I don't have the answers because it's a complicate problem. But while cheaper is not always better, it is probably cheaper to move people out of the community than to subsidize food--unless there is some other plan in place to increase self-sustainability.

Sorry Sonal, I respect you but your estimate is brutally misleading. 1) if you are going by current real estate value, you are looking at closer to $200-250K in any populated area provided you can even find a home. Estimating by southern standards is an often made and dangerous mistake. There's a desperate housing crisis going on in populated areas of the north. The population expands like it tends to do anywhere, but there are no homes for young people to grow up and move in to, and the homes that were built are often not to code in permafrost regions so they fall apart quickly. I'm not even going to go off in that direction... 2) You're making the same mistake as MacFury and arbitrarily assigning a value to something that will be WORTHLESS in a ghost town "hey, you know the only equity you have? That $200K worth that you could lend against so your kids can pay for an apprenticeship? We're going to give you $100K for it. That's all you get because no one wants to live there. Take it or leave it." You're proposing to uproot entire communities and pay them 1/2 price for their homes? Take away the jobs they DO have, that they are good at and cast them to the wind?

I can't honestly believe I'm hearing this... Do you people even remember forced centralization polices? You take away peoples equity, honest, livelihoods, culture, hunting grounds and you can't help but make them wards of the state.

Atiilu Real Estate & Property Management guarantees 100% satisfaction for real estate and property management services in Iqaluit, Nunavut. (http://www.atiilu.com/about.html)
goose bay | House for sale Labrador. Condos for sale Labrador. Homes for sale by owner (FSBO) & MLS property listings on Kijiji.ca (http://labrador.kijiji.ca/p/real-estate-houses-for-sale/goose-bay?CatId=35)
Snap Up Real Estate | Free Listings - Property For Sale in Canada*-*Search Properties*-*Search (http://www.snapuprealestate.ca/properties/search/?event=Search&ProvinceId=12)
Coldwell Banker - New Listings (http://www.cbyk.ca/listings.php?type=new)

And that's if you are lucky to find something...

I can't even show you house listings where my wife is living right now because there are no houses available... you put your name on a list.

Not the issue, besides, the south also has manufacturing, farming, other types of commerce plus population volumes to justify infrastructure for goods which move in multi-directional patterns. Supplying a tiny remote community on Baffin Island is a unidirectional movement. A carrier will charge both ways, even though the return trip is empty. Fuel costs are driving prices to unprecedented levels as operating costs are driven higher and higher.

Unidirectional is false. Diamonds, minerals, slate, blue pearl granite tiles, arctic char all get exported from the north.

By your logic we should stop transporting food to High Level? Grand Prairie? Dawson Creek?

I did say that I wasn't advocating MF's solution.

And even with your estimate on house prices, you still need to count for inflation (fuel costs of getting food there are unlikely to go down) and as MF points out, administration. So 41 years seems unlikely to me.

(And thinking about it a bit, if you are paying people to move out of the community, those that take it will leave a supply of housing behind, bringing values down.)

But even accounting for higher house prices than what I estimate, a buyout is still probably cheaper in the long run. Without other plans to make these communities self-sustaining, we should consider subsidizing food an ongoing cost, vs a one-time fixed cost of buying people out. In the long run, fixed beats ongoing.

I don't think cheaper is the only factor to consider in all of this, however. Nor do I think cheaper is the deciding factor either.

Unidirectional is false. Diamonds, minerals, slate, blue pearl granite tiles, arctic char all get exported from the north.

By your logic we should stop transporting food to High Level? Grand Prairie? Dawson Creek?

Where are you getting that from? When did i ever suggest that?

Posters suggested a subsidy, I pointed out there already is a subsidy. Some here seem to read their own doubts into it.

...and fresh food, which is the topic (unlike real estate), is unidirectional.

Home ownership in Nunavut is less than 25% anyway. Buy them out and pay the renters a flat fee to move elsewhere. Monthly rent is more than $2,000 on average, so give them two year's free rent to leave. Even bigger savings.

To me, it seems unlikely that we can find and (key words) successfully implement a way to make all of these communities self-sustaining in just 16 years.

At the rate we are going we complacently allowed our government to defund just about every means they've implemented at looking towards a lasting solution, and it's only going to get worse unless we do start looking into what's wrong with the system in place. Sure, the government admits, it's not perfect, but then work with people to FIND BETTER SOLUTIONS. Nothing will be perfect, people aren't perfect. But we can make certain things sustainable, all we need is to support ethical community lead research that works with from within communities closely with community members and give them the social programs they need to help those in their friends and families cope with gambling addictions, mental illness, alcoholism and all the other remnants of forced resettlement and residential schools that have decimated northern communities. Give them the means to take better care of themselves and that will solve itself in the long run. 16 years will seem like a drop in the bucket 50 years from now. There ARE programs engaging at risk community youth, researching food sources, community gardens, greenhouses, food sharing... All of these programs exist! But they exist in a political climate where if you dare say that the problem is receding permafrost you put your whole project at risk. That's not paranoid, it's happening! Stable jobs, people who've worked in parks for 40 years, 1600 just got laid off. People making an average wage and suddenly their stable income is completely removed from the community, these programs have fewer volunteers, and there's the ripple effect of less sustained tourism. Thanks conservative government, thanks a whole bunch.

Instead we've got people shouting down protesters as whiners and "gimme gimmes". Once again, blame the poor when you've kicked their legs out form under them...

More money. All they need is more money. It didn't work before but it's going to work this time. It was working under previous governments, but the Conservatives have just ruined everything. Gotta keep these northern communities going because they're northern, and that's good.

Things are gonna change. I can just feel it.

Where are you getting that from? When did i ever suggest that?

Posters suggested a subsidy, I pointed out there already is a subsidy. Some here seem to read their own doubts into it.

...and fresh food, which is the topic (unlike real estate), is unidirectional.

Yeah sorry I think I need to step away from the keyboard for a while...

Though I can't confirm exactly what you are getting at about the shipping. It may be anecdotal but my experience has been that few if any trucks or planes go in or out of a community empty handed. Everything from mail to shipping food, garbage or industrial waste (old broken infrastructure) and vehicles laterally between remote communities goes on constantly.

But the point I was getting at in the first place is that the protest is about fixing the current subsidized system and if necessary adding a bit more to it. I agree in principle, though I'll not go so far as to accuse any business of wrong doing. I think complete transparency is necessary here so informed decisions can be made by policy makers and within the community. That's just my opinion.

More money. All they need is more money. It didn't work before but it's going to work this time. It was working under previous governments, but the Conservatives have just ruined everything. Gotta keep these northern communities going because they're northern, and that's good.

Things are gonna change. I can just feel it.

More sarcasm... that's the solution. See? Even I'm contributing.

Nunavut has been a separate entity since 1999. I have scotch older than that. To which "before" could you possibly be referring??? We've never had so much contact with northern communities and yes, we should strive to keep them "going", just as we should strive to keep all Canadians "going".

More sarcasm... that's the solution. See? Even I'm contributing.

Nunavut has been a separate entity since 1999. I have scotch older than that. To which "before" could you possibly be referring??? We've never had so much contact with northern communities and yes, we should strive to keep them "going", just as we should strive to keep all Canadians "going".

I'm referring to the same communities with the same problems before there was a Nunavut.

And we don't keep all communities going. Some just keep dying until the last person turns out the lights. I've got nothing against these places, but there's a huge difference between a helping hand and permanent life support,

And we don't keep all communities going. Some just keep dying until the last person turns out the lights. I've got nothing against these places, but there's a huge difference between a helping hand and permanent life support,

At last we agree on something! Too bad we disagree on what that difference looks like.

At last we agree on something! Too bad we disagree on what that difference looks like.

Since we agree on something, let's do something more constructive. Are you up on the history if Iqaluit? And I'm not pretending I am.

Admittedly not as much as I should be. I'm not claiming to be an expert and my opinions are my own.

To do something constructive for that community, you would first need to determine whey you are considering the high price of food a public policy problem. Is it because:
a) it's a problem for First Nations citizens, or
b) a problem for all northern citizens?

Okay, let's back up a second:
Iqaluit: total population of 6,184 (2006):
Inuit 57.9 per cent
First Nations 0.7 per cent
Métis 0.4 per cent
Non-aboriginal 41.0 per cent

And your multiple choice is inaccurate.
Is it a problem for a) all low income families b) only Inuit low income families?

What do you think the answer is?

I recognize it as a difficulty for anyone living there, with low income families hit harder as income falls. However, I don't see these high food prices as a problem that government should address, so you need to tell me on what basis government should address it.

The basis has already been established regardless of what I think. The government found cause to subsidize food costs. I can say why I think they should or shouldn't but that wouldn't even necessarily be in line with the people who made those policies already. Me speculating as to why it's a good idea is just that... speculation.

But I do see it as having a long term benefit to the community, because we have the ability to adjust and change policy as necessary to make sure it's not being abused, or that it's still helping the people it was intended to help in the coming years. Just because you have a laissez-faire across the board policy doesn't mean everyone else agrees.

As far as I'm concerned it makes sense if nothing else than from a health care standpoint. Healthier communities have less chronic problems. Of course I can imagine your response to that one already... I think I know your views about healthcare pretty well by now.

If your argument boils down to "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" or "people are healthier when they have enough food" then we don't have a basis for further discussion.

I'm asking you why you think the government should intervene here. If your answer is "they already have, so they should intervene more" again, there's no basis for further discussion.

I'm attempting to analyze this from a public policy perspective.

My personal opinion is that if the government claims any rights to the land then they should be willing to see to the well being of the people on it. From a policy perspective it could easily be seen as MB put it earlier. It's in the government's best interest that there are Canadians populating those regions therefore it can be seen as an investment. I think that's a sad reductionist approach but whatever it's a possible consideration. From a social policy perspective, anything that would lead to a collapse of the major towns up north could very well lead to a collapse of nearly all settlements up north. I don't think I can be any clearer than I already have as to why we would want to try to avoid this other than to add that I do not personally feel that many people in Canada would be very welcoming of people from up north to their communities for a variety of reasons: everything from cultural conflicts, competition in the job markets, to language barriers to flat out ethnocentrism (there are people in Canada who are still openly belligerent to people from Quebec and Newfoundland, say nothing of the disgraceful racism in this country towards those who identify as Inuit, First Nations, and Metis people).

So if those reasons aren't good enough for you, I don't know what else I can say.

"My personal opinion is that if the government claims any rights to the land then they should be willing to see to the well being of the people on it." Very good point, cap10subtext. The Canadian government wants to have sovereignty over the north, and claims this sovereign state, in part, because there are Canadians living throughout the region .......... many of whom were relocated there with promises of help and support (which never came). I view is in a capitalistic term -- "it is the cost of doing business there". From an ethical perspective, I strongly agree that no Canadian, regardless of locale, should go hungry. From a local perspective, our provincial government here in Newfoundland and Labrador subsidize communities in rural and coastal Labrador in that it is felt that if riches from the resources are to be taken from this part of our province, it is the right of the people living there to share in the wealth of these riches.

Paix, mon ami.

And then there are intangible riches. We could all learn something from values baked into inuktitut over the centuries, I imagine.

However, the question here is not "Why are we going hungry" but "Why does food cost so much in this place." Otherwise the protests would not be held against the food store.

Dr. G: makes a good point if it's true that some specific help offered to Inuit residents was not delivered in return for settling here. I might be more inclined to accept some solution as a breach of promise, however poorly thought-out that promise might have been. In that case, however, it is an Inuit issue and not an issue of poverty in general.

If the point of the two major settlements is to create a beach head to prove Canada owns Nunavut, then we also need to define how many people are necessary to establish that claim.

However, the question here is not "Why are we going hungry" but "Why does food cost so much in this place." Otherwise the protests would not be held against the food store.

Dr. G: makes a good point if it's true that some specific help offered to Inuit residents was not delivered in return for settling here. I might be more inclined to accept some solution as a breach of promise, however poorly thought-out that promise might have been. In that case, however, it is an Inuit issue and not an issue of poverty in general.

If the point of the two major settlements is to create a beach head to prove Canada owns Nunavut, then we also need to define how many people are necessary to establish that claim.

Macfury, CBC did a detailed report on the settlement of the arctic regions. There are National Film Board movies on this resettlement and documents on the specific promises made re support to move to these areas as a way of making sure the claims for Canadian ownership was valid ............. and this was back in the 50s before the mineral and oil exploration boom took place. Little if any of the promised supports were ever given.

Macfury, CBC did a detailed report on the settlement of the arctic regions. There are National Film Board movies on this resettlement and documents on the specific promises made re support to move to these areas as a way of making sure the claims for Canadian ownership was valid ............. and this was back in the 50s before the mineral and oil exploration boom took place. Little if any of the promised supports were ever given.

I recall some of it Dr. G.--but not the specific promises. Again, one needs to sort out the issues. Is there a specific promise the federal government needs to keep regarding food? If so, it applies only to Inuit and not to the remainder of the community.

I recall some of it Dr. G.--but not the specific promises. Again, one needs to sort out the issues. Is there a specific promise the federal government needs to keep regarding food? If so, it applies only to Inuit and not to the remainder of the community.

They were guaranteed housing, food support, materials to develop communities, etc, and a stipend of a certain amount of money ................ nothing that was promised was delivered. Instead of housing, they were given tents ............ in the Arctic!!! :eek:

I taught a student who is a direct descendent of the initial families resettled in the Grise Fiord (spelling ?). She got me interested in this experience. Here are a couple of interesting citations re this movement of people to the north. The Pope article uses the term "human flagpoles" to describe these relocated people.

"The High Arctic Relocation: A Report on the 1953–55 Relocation" by René Dussault and George Erasmus, produced by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, published by Canadian Government Publishing, 1994

Pope, Frank (May 14th, 2011). "Disappearing Arctic". The Times Magazine (London).