Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Deneb, I get your point but the economics make zero sense. Look at the lower 48 of the US. Arguably, the entire geographic area of the country is readily habitable, at least far more easily than north of 60.
The US has 10x the population of Canada, easy access to essentially 100% of the area and a moderate climate, there are still massive swaths of land that are underserved, underutilized, and you can drive for miles without seeing habitation or a population of anymore than a handful of people.
I think the Arctic is a huge resource, but first find a million or so people who want to live there on a permanent basis, then you can start the infrastructure discussion. The VAST majority of humanity does not want to be well below freezing and in the dark for the better part of the year. Canada is 150 years old as a nation this year, we haven't hit 150,000 people up there yet.
This might be the wrong perspective, but if people want to live in the middle of no where, that is certainly their right. Given that people chose to live where there are no amenities, is it then government's responsibility to provide them?
It just seems like there is something wrong with this picture.
what right?
Yes, as a Canadian one can freely choose to live wherever he wants, but to say "since I live here, the government should provide me with airports, railways and hospitals", that's just unreasonable because financial resources (through tax collection from other Canadians) should be spent responsibly. You don't built a 2 billion infrastructure for 300 people to use just because they feel entitled.
I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with Canada's “northern policy". You don't spend big money for no return. Even somewhere as remote as Tibet has more than 3 million people to deserve a rail connection. For 110k people on a massive land of 3.6 million sq km on Canada's territories, it is just not worth it. Tibet has 1/3 of the land and 30 times the population.
It is not just the territories that is sparse, all the northern regions of Canada's provinces that border the territories have very few people on them too. In this graph, the yellow region would have similar density has Tibet, and you are saying we should have airports and train stations in the white regions?
We already over pay for cheese in the rest of Canada but that is just crazy.
The same Camembert or Brie costs about 1/3 the price in France, but that's due to taxes.
The north is paying that much because that's the true cost of making the stuff and transporting it to them (often by air). What's to complain about then? They can choose to make the things locally if they want.
Additionally, economies of scale. It is completely fair and reasonable that a pack of cheese costs 1/5 the price in Toronto compared to Nunavut.
Well if we aren't going to provide the infrastructure to northerners, we should at least provide enough subsidies so northerners aren't paying $10,000 a month in groceries. If there is only 118,000 people there, can't we pay to have their grocery bills are on par with Toronto and Vancouver? In most cases, these people didn't choose to live in these areas because they were born there and it is their ancestral land. If we aren't prepared to do that, should we just sit idly by and watch them suffer? Should we force them to leave? Should we give up on the north?
The are a number of tax breaks already for living in the north. I'm only in a zone B, but there is both the northern living allowance and I get a little larger homeowners grant.
While I don't pay $23 for cheese, I have paid some prices that would make some people in Toronto cringe. If I wanted to do all my shopping at a costco though I'd move to within a few minutes of one.
My alumni magazine had an article on endangered species the other day with the title Adapt, Move, or Die; which I like the sentiment of. Adapt (which in this case might include adopting a more traditional diet, or finding a way to make more money to buy foods that aren't natural to the area), move (to a location with a lower cost of living), die (obviously not die in this case, but fail to thrive if do nothing). I don't consider building a ton of infrastructure for a handful of people to be a reasonable adaptation. I don't think some people even have a good grasp how huge and remote the north part of this country really is. I doubt many more people will ever live there regardless of what's done.
Well if we aren't going to provide the infrastructure to northerners, we should at least provide enough subsidies so northerners aren't paying $10,000 a month in groceries. If there is only 118,000 people there, can't we pay to have their grocery bills are on par with Toronto and Vancouver? In most cases, these people didn't choose to live in these areas because they were born there and it is their ancestral land. If we aren't prepared to do that, should we just sit idly by and watch them suffer? Should we force them to leave? Should we give up on the north?
Not giving away money does not mean people are giving up on the north. It is a choice to live there. All decisions are a compromise. By choosing to live several thousand miles away from any kind of population center, you're making the choice to abide by the consequences of those decisions. One of which is that everything is f'n expensive because it has to be brought in by air or barge. The ancestral land comment is ludicrous. So live like your ancestors. I guarantee there was no black diamond cheddar 150 years ago, so you shouldn't have to worry about it. If you want to live in the 21st century, you have to let go of some things to be part of society.
You beat the road and rail thing to death last year, and now it's just give people money. By living in Iqualuit you de facto do not get to have the same lifestyle as living on Yonge St., regardless how much you may want it to be so.
Just adding my 2 cents ... but why the heck does anyone even want to live up there? I think we got all this land we might as well do something with it ex develope it... but honestly I next to never think about anything outside of a majority city. So if the North of Canada wants attention maybe they should come up with some ideas of what could be done to to get some developement done out there rather then seeming to want hand outs. I can not even get my head around the idea of travelling too far North in Canada. I would have no idea what to except and just be praying I did not get eaten by a bear or what ever else is roaming around there. Anyone I have ever met ( like all 2 or 3 of them) that went to live in"Northern Canada" spoke of it like a prision sentence and could not wait to get out of there.
This might be the wrong perspective, but if people want to live in the middle of no where, that is certainly their right. Given that people chose to live where there are no amenities, is it then government's responsibility to provide them?
It just seems like there is something wrong with this picture.
Yeah, we love to boast about our beautiful vistas and vast geography, but God help you if you happen to live "in the middle of nowhere". This is our country, and if we claim it then people have a right to live where they live.
If anything I think the rest of Canada should subsidize northern food prices. Access to affordable food is a necessity, its it not?
Yeah, we love to boast about our beautiful vistas and vast geography, but God help you if you happen to live "in the middle of nowhere". This is our country, and if we claim it then people have a right to live where they live.
If anything I think the rest of Canada should subsidize northern food prices. Access to affordable food is a necessity, its it not?
They are subsidized through reduced taxes and allowances. In fact you get a tax break of $22 a day per the last tax forms. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t2222/t2222-16e.pdf People have a right to live wherever they want. Access to food is a necessity, but not one guaranteed by government or the balance of the population. You're confusing necessity with a right.
If I choose to go live on a rock off the coast of Vancouver Island, are you saying that I should by right have food brought to me and sold at the cost of what it would sell for in a major centre like Vancouver, just by virtue of me making a stupid choice? Because that is a lot what you and Deneb sound like.
If I choose to go live on a rock off the coast of Vancouver Island, are you saying that I should by right have food brought to me and sold at the cost of what it would sell for in a major centre like Vancouver, just by virtue of me making a stupid choice? Because that is a lot what you and Deneb sound like.
Nobody should have to pay $23 for a brick of cheddar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
