Riding Talk

Thank goodness the liberals prevailed. God Save the Queen!
SITE

I believe the career backgrounds, and community activies of Nancy versus David Sr. speaks for itself. I believe David would have more political experience rathering than being a Liberal puppet. I support David Aglukark Sr.

thank you

As much as I believe all parties have ideas and solutions to our countries Provincial and Territorial problems/issues with Health Care, Education, and Taxes etc. I find it unfair that Nunavut's Marijuana party leader Ed Devries be censored by the CBC and not aloud to participate in the debates. As well as not having his information/bio posted on the CBC website for the Nunavit region like the other Candidates.

Sure the issue of legalization of Marijuana or decriminalization of Marijuana is a controversial debate. Ed's goal is not only for that of the decriminalization of Marijuana, but also he shares the views and concerns of Nunavutmiut and others. His reasons for running are genuine and he truly believes he can help make a difference. Why censor him CBC? Allow him to be heard just as equally as others. He has a voice and he has a right to be heard fairly and justly as others are. I am dissmayed at how the CBC be it as a whole or CBC North handles the issues of free speech.

What about the Marijuana Party candidate in Nunavut? Ed Devries might pull off a Canadian first!

Geoff:

The Liberals started the Gomery investigations pretty much as soon as Martin took power. If that's not dissociation from the guilty (which, by the way, are not part of the party anymore) then I don't know what is.

How sad that as the election date nears we only hear of increased fear-mongering on the part of the Prime Minister. Mr. Martin and the Liberal cabal are toast on Monday and they will all have to take a bite.

Jim,

The Liberals you are defending helped defend those guilty of the corruption. They could have rallied together to threaten to defeat the government unless those involved resigned their positions, including seats in Parliament. Instead, they quiescently let them continue.

These same Liberals led the vote in favour of a salary increase. They bleat at the command of the prime minister, supporting bills the PM tells them to support, rather than acting in what they believe to be the national interest.

Since they refused to call those guilty to account, they have sided with the guilty, and therefore the next judge/jury, the voters, must now render judgement and find them guilty by their refusal to disassociate with the guilty.

We should vote them out of office as discipline for failing to discipline those guilty of the corruption, and also for voting themselves a salary increase and lifetime pensions that many people in Canada don't have and while many Canadians are still in poverty.

If that's not good enough reason for a voter to turf out the Liberals, then how well-provided for are those voters?

Darcy, through the Gomery inquiry the Liberal government is suing all the people who financially benefited from the Sponsorship Program to retreive that money, and give it back to Canadians.

As for the Liberal government not giving out taxbreaks, that's because it would mean cuts in social programs, which the less fortunate need to enjoy a decent living. Some of these social programs, such as daycare, can be enjoyed by all Canadians, even the ones which are well-off.

Furthermore, the Conservatives are offering GST cuts, while the Liberals are offering Income Tax cuts. The Income Tax cuts can be strategically set up so that the lower income individuals don't pay any taxes, while the rich pay more. The GST cut is directly dependant on how much you spend. If you spend less than $80,000 then a GST cut would not give you significant tax relief. Other Conservative tax cut proposals are directed to very specific groups of people (public transit users, parents with children enrolled in sports, parents with children under six) and would not help most Canadians. Furthermore, it would not help those which it intended to help. For example, $25 a week for childcare is ridiculous, given that it costs a lot more than that daily, and there are no qualty daycare facilities for parents to spend on in the first place.

As for the Liberals promising to scrap the GST but then not doing so, it is because the disastrous state in which the budget was at the time due to the previous Conservative government. The deficit took them by surprize, so they had to take back their promise.

You can't blame the Liberals for talking about the old Conservatives. it's been twelve years since the last Conservative government. People forgot what it's like to have the Conservatives in control, or are too young to remember, and they want change because they think that things can be better. Of course they can, they always can. That doesn't meant that voting Conservatives is the answer. If you have ideas about how to change your community for the better, you can always send a letter to your MP.

Also, I wish people would stop saying all Liberals are corrupt because a few are. This is called "guilt by association" and it is a logical fallacy. One rotten apple does not spoil the whole bunch. Some people take this bad logic too far, and say "A few Liberals were corrupt, Liberals are politicians, therefore all politicians are corrupt." Simply disgusting how so many Canadians fall for such bad logic.

I am not a Liberal supporter (go NDP) but all these fallacies really get to my nerves. At least now you know the facts.

First order of business a Conservative government should do would be to take the salaries of any Liberal MPs that survive the coming slaughter at the poles and use that money to re-imburse all Canadians for all their hard-earned tax dollars the Liberals squandered in the Sponsorship Scandal. Hey, why not? Afterall, its not the government's money, it's our money.

I would then use this money to help all suffering members of the Liberal Party of Canada to buy a conscience.

In the eith years that Karetak-Lindell has been in office she has repeatedly claim to be the voice of Nunavut in Ottawa. Many of us have criticized her for not being outspoken at the House since she'd be elected nor representing our best interests. Now that the Conservatives seem likely to form the next government, whether as a minority government or majority, we might find out if in fact she is vocal and represents the best interests of Nunavut. Considering the voters in Nunavut have a tendency to vote for experience, rather that rationality, it's quite possible that she will be voted in again, probably by a smaller margin than the last vote.

Dennis Bevington would be best to serve us Nunavummiut but he's running
in a different riding. He would've made sure that devolution and revenue
resource sharing happens in conjunction with the Government of Nunavut.
We have so much potential here in Nunavut in terms of exploiting natural
resources from Oil and Gas to the mineral industry.
How come it is not an issue here? Are we too ill-informed a voters to care?

In response to E-Nuke, yes I am sure the Liberals would be right there to lower my taxes. At the moment it is only policy. Of course, at one point in time, it was also Liberal policy to eliminate the GST and we all know where that policy went. Tell you what, I'll vote Liberal if they make it a policy to reimburse me for all the taxes that were wasted in the Sponsorship Scandal. The simple fact of the matter is that the Liberals have run out of ideas, run out of morals and come January I plan to vote to run them out of office.

It appears that any issue being discussed here has to go through Roger's critique.
There are some interesting topics being discussed. But it not need Rogers approval or consent. Roger is not the know it all, and he should respect others opinions.
One question, where are you voting Roger, is it in the Nunavut riding?

The Liberal proposed policy to decrease Income Taxes counts as a tax-increase? How? Darcy Stelle seems to be uninformed on the issues.

The Income Tax deduction will translate into alot more savings for people than the proposed CpoC GST cut.

To: Former Iqaluit Resident

Just for the sake of clarity and understanding, when you make the statement, "Most GLBTQ residents in Nunavut are qallunaat from away."

I know that the "G" stands for "Gay," and the "L" stands for "Lesbian," and the "B" stands for "Bi-sexual," and the "T" stands for "Transgender."

But what does the "Q" stand for?

You stated on January 13, "The gay marriage debate isn't about eventually marrying humans to their huskies or even legalizing pedophelia. It's about providing the same rights to any pair of consenting adults - regardless of their gender."

You say that the issue is only about providing the same rights to any "pair" of consenting adults.

Why, then, do you include "Bi-sexuals" in your lobby group to promote this cause? Bi-sexuals are polyamorous but not in "pairs," are they?

Now we are talking about three or more in sexual liason and union, and they are lobbying right there along side this movement that says that they are only talking about "pairs of consenting adults."

Which is it, pairs of consenting adults, or other polyamorous relationships that are being promoted by this group of GLBTQ?

Perhaps all the people that continue voting for the Liberals inspite of their obvious corruption, cronyism and incompetence should be the ones paying all taxes. Liberal tax policy may sound good to them but will do little for young single employed people such as myself. Stop voting for a party that will raise taxes and not give tax breaks! I'm sick and tired of paying for it!

Everytime questions of taxation and deficits arise the Liberals constantly bring up the old Conservatives. Do they not realize that this was 12 years ago? What have they done in the meantime to lower my taxes? Nothing! I am reminded of this fact everytime I look at a pay stub.

We need "real people" in Parliament and fewer politicians. How sad the system has been so skewered that it is almost impossible for the average citizen to participate in the democratic process.

To: "Former Iqalauit Resident."

Thank you for your civil and respectful response. I appreciated it a lot, and think that we can agree on most areas.

I respect your right to your point of view, and appreciated that you did not resort to any kind of emotional labelling in this past post. This is what makes reaonable and intelligent dialogue possible.

Thank you, and have a good day.

Markam, your post is based upon the false premise that the state gives us our rights, and that, in my view, is a false premise, a shaky foundation for human rights indeed.

If the state gave us our rights, then our rights are not inalienable and inherent, because whatever the state gives, the state can take away.

Inalienable and inherent rights go back to the created order, and transcend the authority of any state.

Any law that any government makes is subject to change by a subsequent government, but human rights transcend the authority of the state.

That is why the Canadian Charter commences with those historic words that "Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God."

Or as the Declaration of First Nations
states so eloquently,

"We the Original Peoples of this land know the Creator put us here.

"The Creator gave us laws that govern all our relationships to live in harmony with nature and mankind.

"The Laws of the Creator defined our rights and responsibilities."

Inherent rights and inalienable rights come from the created order. All other state-made laws are subject to change. In other words, the State is not God and is not the source of human rights.

Otherwise, there could be no universal human rights, because every government thinks differently. Yet there are some laws to which even the state and the judges are subject.

According to your definition of human rights, the Labor government of Tony Blair is guilty of violating human rights be allowing "civil unions" but not "civil marriages." The same could be said for France and by far most other nations of the world.

Do you believe that these nations are violating human rights?

You can believe that the Conservatives should be ashamed of putting the marriage definition to a free vote if you want to, but I say that the Liberals should be ashamed of thinking that they could make a law defining an institution that they did not create, and that preceded the state and its limited jurisdiction.

I say, what about the natural rights of children to be raised by their natural parents? The state has now redefined "natural parent," a term that the state cannot control with the term "legal parent" in Canadian law, a term that the state can fully control. That puts our definitions and rights as a "legal parent" entirely at the mercy of the state, rather than the state recognizing an authority greater than itself.

Let me ask you, Markam, do you believe that the State is the source of our human rights?

If so, how are these rights not then subject to change?

And if the State is not the source of our human rights, who, in your view, is?

If the Conservatives had any principles, they would demand that we redo every single vote in Canadian history that may have involved whipping of a cabinet member into voting a certain way. This is political opportunism and a disgusting attack, pure and simple. I don't believe that Canada is the kind of country where we give people rights and then take them away again. The Conservatives should be ashamed of this silly policy.

Roger, Mr. Aglukark is indeed "an esteemed negotiator on behalf of Inuit with federal authorities in the past..." and as you say, "the marriage issue is only one part of many issues that he is concerned about." This is true as well. I was only responding to your own focus on the marriage issue - nothing else. Mr. Aglukark is clearly a much more developed candidate but if there were a free vote, we now know how he'd vote. And, how he'd vote is unfortunate, in my opinion.

It is true that Inuit adoption normally remains within the family and that this is how it should continue (I was not explicit about it due to brevity's sake) but nonetheless, you imply that were a married, gay Inuk (should there ever be one) interested to adopt her sister's or cousin's child, this person should not be permitted to do so. I completely agree with you that the Native adoption program has failed completely! What I was speaking about was your asking "Do you say that every type of human sexual relationship is equal to any other, and as necessary for the preservation of the intergenerational community?"

All I'm saying is that homosexual families can succeed exactly where you think they fail. As well, how the marriage issue will NEVER extend to adults marrying children or humans marrying other animals.

But as others have mentioned, the marriage issue is practically a non-issue in Nunavut and there are much, MUCH, larger iqaluit to fry. Most GLBTQ residents in Nunavut are qallunaat from away. I do hope, however, that even these people can live in Nunavut feeling safe knowing that Nunavummiut accept homosexuality.

But lets discuss more critical issues. Lets talk about housing, lets talk about jobs, lets talk about healthcare, suicide, HIV. Lets talk about education. And who can find the best solutions?

I am sorry that the people in Nunavut have never had the opportunity to choose the Christian Heritage Party on their ballot. (I've had the privilege of representing the CHP four times in my own riding, Yukon. I've counted a victory three times (I judge myself shaky the first time out), having forsaken votes rather than fudge on my beliefs just to get votes.)

I had hoped one of the many evangelical Christians in Nunavut would step forward, but the few who know of us have not felt so convicted of their beliefs as to put their names forward. On the other hand, there may be politically motivated people in Nunavut who would run for the CHP but aren't aware of its existence.

Give thanks to the national media who don't bother to emphasize that there are 15 registered parties in Canada, 11 of which run in several provinces. "The House" mentioned it in their January 7 program, but that's the extent of what I've heard.

The CHP, at least, would offer voters a combination of compassion for those in need, compassion for those under the addiction of homosexual behaviour, but a high regard for the strength of the traditional family and the need to protect it, as well as fiscally responsible government.

The Conservatives are socially-permissive/liberal, not quite as much as the Liberals and NDP, but they are economic conservatives... too conservative for our health care system. In contrast, the CHP are socially conservative in recognition of what being permissive has done to society's fabric, but the CHP is economically moderate, recognizing the need to support those who are economically disadvantaged, permanently or temporarily.

And as regards the first peoples of Canada, our approach is reconciliation first, and acknowledging each other's worth as persons. No other party believes in that reconciliation.

To "Former Iqaluit Resident":

First of all, I never go by the title "Reverend Armbruster." My name is simply Roger, and I don't accept any reference to being "revered" in any way, shape or form. I detest that title.

At least, however, I have revealed my true identity, whereas you hide behind your anonomity.

You state, "If Reverend Armbruster is right in stating that his pal David Aglukark wants to actively promote homophobic policies, he probably isn't the best candidate either - despite being active in protecting Inuit values."

Why instead of making a rational argument do you resort to emotiveness and name-calling, such as referring to the Conservative candidate as promoting "homophobic policies."

Mr. Aglukark is an esteemed negotiator on behalf of Inuit with federal authorities in the past, and as Inuk himself, and no "puppet" for the federal government, he obviously understands the Inuit mind-set and aspirations very well.

Mr. Aglukark is well-qualified and knowledgeable in many areas of government, and the marriage issue is only one part of many issues that he is concerned about, and where the Liberals have failed.

With the marriage issue, all that his partyis proposing is a "free vote" in the House of Commons, not a whipped one as the last vote was, both with the Liberal Cabinet, and with the NDP caucus.

Far from being extremist or homophobic, the Conservative Party of Canada has clearly articulated its plans to allow for a "free vote" on this issue from the first day of the campaign. Now, today, we have this statement on the CBC News that "Canadians, soothed by the party's new moderate image, may be poised to elect a non-Liberal government for the first time since 1988." See the following web-site for details.

SITE

Then, your statement, "This (the importance of children staying connected to their biological roots) is suspicious though considering that adoption is so common among Inuit. If anything, Inuit culture proves that biology is not necessary in building strong family units."

First, the vast number of adoptions in Inuit culture are adoptions by grandparents or relatives, where the children also stay in touch with their biological roots, and grand parents and relatives are part of one's biological roots. So what you are saying is not the same thing that I am talking about.

After the infamous residential schools were shown to be a disaster, the government tried a policy of adopting Native children out to families that were alien to their culture. This, too, proved to be a total disaster. This is what I am talking about.

The fact is, invariably these children wanted to get reconnected to their biological roots, and to come to know what their real identity was. This is irrefutable and incontestible.

Yet you say, "Armbruster is raising LONG-debunked arguments that are no longer relevant." Since when has the utter failure of the Native adoption program of, say, the Manitoba government been long debunked?

You tend to not use reason, but emotion and name-calling in an attempt to intimidate. It simply will not work. Come to me with facts about the adoption of Native children, and then let us reason together to see whose argument has been long debunked.

I respect you as a person who had every bit as much right to a view point as I do, but let's get into a discussion, and not try to shut down the discussion by resorting to name-calling and other emotive tactics that do not use reason in a debate.

Joe ;you are missing the whole point of Canada and her commitment to the Keyoto accord.When the Liberals signed up for the accord in the early 1990's; they promised to reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 17% by the year 2006 or so.Instead greenhouse gases have increased by 24% in that time span.
Meanwhile the United States during the same time have actually reduced their emissions; not by much but at least they did not increse; even though the States never made any promises and did not sign the accord. By the way; at the recent Montreal meeting on Global warming; a group of US city mayors representing a collective population of approximately 40 million have promised to volunterly cut emmissions in their respective cities since Bush and Clinton refused to sign up with the Keyoto accord.

It would be great if an Inuk won the seat but considering that Nancy hasn't really been a strong voice since she was first elected in 1997, maybe it's time for a change. Unfortunately, I don't think Feliks Kappi is experienced enough for the job (maybe one day though!) and if Reverend Armbruster is right in stating that his pal David Aglukark wants to actively promote homophobic policies, he probably isn't the best candidate either - despite being active in protecting Inuit values.

Armbruster argues that we can't "deal with these issues on the material side alone without also building strong family units where children are helped in staying connected to their biological roots". This is suspicious though considering that adoption is so common among Inuit. If anything, Inuit culture proves that biology is not necessary in building strong family units. This is especially true if there is an abusive parent/spouse.

Armbruster is raising LONG-debunked arguments that are no longer relevant. The gay marriage debate isn't about eventually marrying humans to their huskies or even legalizing pedophelia. it's about providing the same rights to any pair of consenting adults - regardless of their gender.

Anyway, Bill Riddell is not Inuk but he has lived in the north for a long time and understands what the people of Nunavut need to move forward. He is a human rights activist, works hard to solve the problem of homelessness and substance abuse and is active in supporting education opportunities for Nunavummiut.

Taima.

To all first time voters and others who have not been registered on the voters list.Avoid the polling day line ups and possible embarrassment by holding up the line up when trying to prove eligibility and the right to vote. Consider casting your ballot at the advance poll days; Jan 13, 14,and 16; from noon to 8p.m.when there will be more than sufficant time for the poll clerks to
process your documents such as I.D. and age. Bring 2 pieces of identification i.e. birth certificate, drivers license, libary card;pay stub; even an address letter envelope with their name and adress that has been posted through the mail may be used as identification.
The youth should realize that it has been only a very short time that Inuit have gained the right to vote the same as other Canadian citizens (approx. since the 1960's)Not bothering to exercise this right when people in other countries risk their lives for this privilage says something about our youth. Either they do not realize what is at stake or most likly they take for granted our present life style. They need to be reminded that the government that they get is voted in by the general public.If one does not vote then they have no right to complain.

What did people think of the debate in Iqaluit Tuesday night? Since the candidates won't be able to get around the Territory, that's one of the few chances we all have to hear what the candidates propose. I fell alseep during the first hour of the English debate.

Elections: With only 40% turnout in the 2004 election (the lowest in Canada), we need Nunavut-specific election regulations. I tried to get an absentee ballot sent to me from Iqaluit in case I'm not home by the 23rd. Boy! What an exercise in frustration! In short, this may be the first time in a generation I have not voted in a federal election. 39%?

The way global warming is affecting the weather patterns, which is changing the animals we hunt for food worries us. some of the elders of our community feel experience difficulty real soon, due to change in all of the migrating animal we depend on, and we are simply being held hostage without being able to influence the importance of needing to change the ways use fossil fuel. by the time people feel forced to change, i think it will have been too late, because we will not be able to reverse the damage done, due to the way we lack of commitment by us all, as people of the world. as people we do all the damage, and until we take responsibility as a nation, we will all lose at the end. some candidates are focusing on moral values, and things like housing issues, economic development. the liberal have tried to have the Kyoto accord for a few years now, and finally got that done, so i think the liberals try and consider Canada as a whole, more than the other parties.

Campaign funding limits are a good thing for most of the country, but something has to be done about the inability of Nunavut candidates to travel the constituency. Or getting more fora like this set up to do electronic campaigning. The current situation will always favour the incumbent.

Sovereignty: What about sovereignty in the Arctic? The greatest threat to Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic is the U.S. Evidently a couple of U.S. rendition flights landed in Iqaluit on their way to transporting "illegal combatants" to where they could be tortured. Why is no one complaining about this?

reading the comment from Rodger Armbruster compaired to the comments of other writers, make you think he is from a different riding his issues are not refecting the real life issues you see at local community level, have you ever tried to fight a power bill issue . waited for your mail for weeks on end .A quick trip to another community is almost your years savings.$ 14.00 dollar jug of milk ,tell me how "sexual orientation "is going to help us in these issues.A dollar is a dollar and maybe a penny for your thoughs

Canada Post: Now that mail is no longer subsidized to Nunavut, why do we still get the same Third World postal service we had before, even after the big price increases? I'm getting my Xmas cards **after** Xmas, same as ALWAYS!!

GST: Why do Nunavummiut pay GST on **everything** that's sent up here, including the freight and postage? For that matter, why do we pay GST on books and magazines and newspapers, the essential ingredients of any democracy? No other democracy does so. $14 for a jug of milk. Why aren't stores even accessing the Food Mail subsidies? They're more bother than they're worth?

FAL: It still takes six months to get a gun license. That's **if** you can find somebody in your community who can do the gun safety course. Nobody pays any attention to the gun regulations anyway. The Liberals have made crooks of almost the whole community in almost every community.

Comments?

Quasa, I respect your views, and please listen to the debates with openness.

Do you believe that the equal rights and value of every individual Canadian translates into the relational equivalent of every kind of human sexual relationship?

The word "sexual orientation" has not even been defined by our courts or by our Parliament. Yet it is being assigned ambiguously as a human right without definition.

Do you say that every type of human sexual relationship is equal to any other, and as necessary for the preservation of the intergenerational community?

When it comes to the Conservative Party, remember, it was not the Liberals, but the government of Brian Mulroney that negotiated the Nunavut Land Claims Settlement, and that passed the Nunavut Act of 1993.

The founding fathers of Nunavut were able to negotiate very well with the Progressive Conservative government, and I don't see any reason why that goodwill cannot continue under a Conservative government.

All the best, and vote as you please, but please vote.

What are David's issues? Other than running because he does not believe in equal rights?
Where does he stand on rights of minorities?
What voice will he really have?

What traditional Inuit values will the consrevative party bring ?

The Conservative party leaders have not ever been in Nunavut. When will they come to consult with us Nunavutmmiut?

Who did they consult on thier Northern strategy?

I look forward to the debate on tuesday.

Children need a father and a mother, and whenever they are cut off from their biological roots, they still want to know who their real parents are in order to come to know their real identity. A sense of your own unique identity is vital for every human being.

You cannot divorce identity issues from economic issues. In fact, the number one cause of poverty is the abandonment of children by men.

So let's not pretend we can deal with these issues on the material side alone without also building strong family units where children are helped in staying connected to their biological roots if at all possible.

The candidates should be thinking about how to represent the 26,745 people in the nunavut riding . think about housing issues,education ,think about tranportation,high cost of food ,communications cost.Do not worry about two guys holding hands going down the street ,your moral thoughts do not bring in the money needed to build infrastruchure in our communites.Think about how your one vote in parliament is going to help the 26,745 people in nunavut.~~~~~~MUTNA~~~~~~

The candidates should be thinking about how to represent the 26,745 people in the nunavut riding . think about housing issues,education ,think about tranportation,high cost of food ,communications cost.Do not worry about two guys holding hands going down the street ,your moral thoughts do not bring in the money needed to build infrastruchure in our communites.Think about how your one vote in parliament is going to help the 26,745 people in nunavut.~~~~~~MUTNA~~~~~~

David Aglukark is an honourable man who would make an excellent MP for Nunavut, which needs a voice to represent traditional Inuit values and not of the liberal-leaning bureaucrats, lobby groups and mass media. I believe that if his party's policies and Nunavut's interests conflict, that David Aglukark will stand up for Inuit values.

The Nunavut MP needs to speak up and look at other regions in our Nunavut Territory for example the Kitikmeot region it's not just Cambridge Bay or Kugluktuk.We have Gjoa Haven, Taloyaok and Kuugakruk as well.
I see that she had done a lot of things for her Kivalliq region. What will she do for the other regions in Nunavut.
I can't tell who will win the election
but the person elected will have to do more and listed to the people of Nunavut.

I'm a concerned Canadian Inuk that our MP from Nunavut has not been able to fully support Nunavut. I think she is just a Liberal puppet to make them look good. I'll be voting for the Conservative Party this time around. The Liberal Gov't has done to many wrongs and have broken to many promises to the Inuit of Nunavut. I believe with a new Gov't in power, the Inuit of Nunavut will be more respected and listened too.

Personally I'm not sure what Karetak-Lindell is doing in Ottawa. I don't see her as a strong voice addressing the territory's concerns in terms of housing, employment, same-sex marriage or the dog slaughter. Hopefully on Jan. 23, we will have a real MP and not just another Liberal lapdog. Unfortunately, with liberal-leaning Iqaluit being such a strong voting force in our riding, I don't hold out much hope.

housing and jobs are the main problems in nunavut as we are growing with a alot of young ones growing we need to see more jobs opening and more housing as we are going to see more people moving from one place to the next.
i don't know who will win to the tell truth.