![]() |
Columnists
|
Spend money in Nunavut not on summit
Harry Maksagak Guest columnist Monday, June 7, 2010 Previous columns Several issues back, I wrote on my displeasure with how the minister of finance for Nunavut is talking about revamping the current liquor act and I certainly hope he has reconsidered. Now, the federal government is talking about spending all this money on security while bureaucrats meet and greet on who knows what. My little community of about 1,500 residents is grappling with a housing shortage, substance abuse is running rampant, employment or lack of employment is a serious issue and yet the government of our country chooses to ignore this and squander this unbelievable amount of money. I think the planners of this summit encourage the not-so-desirables to go ahead and disrupt the proceedings by arranging such an elaborate scheme of security. I thought an official remarked, "Why not use one of the military bases close by as the site for this international summit?" I'd rather have this option considered than spending these funds much needed for Canada's Northern citizens. We are constantly tightening our household budgets on shelter, food, clothing, limited travel all because of the high costs up here. The food mail subsidy has once again been tampered with and is proposed to be given over to the retailers; that blows me away! The Hudson Bay Company, now known as the Northern or NorthMart, which was built on the backs of my great-grandfather and his generation, have really forgotten this and have put us between a rock and a hard place. Although the co-operative movement has improved the situation slightly, we are still spending four to five times the national average of disposable income on basic necessities, yet the federal government is willing to spend this huge amount on foreigners. The territory of Nunavut has no real economic base and continues to draw from a funding formula shared by the western territory and the Yukon. I believe the whole idea behind dividing the Territories in two was for more autonomy and advancement. Where are our MPs when we need them to speak up for us in the house?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||