Lethbridge Declaration

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina
Lethbridge Declaration

It appears that the NDP is acting on Nikki's excellent Lethbridge idea.

http://lethbridgedeclaration.ca/

I don't live on the Praire's, but I think its an exciting idea.

I wish it had more pubistity so spread this web address far and wide.

Also I'm happy for Nikki, between this and her women's conference it appears she's really taking a leadership role within the party.

What kind of stuff/direction do you fellow dippers think the Lethbridge Declaration take?

Also should other regions get a declaration too, like a Hamilton Declaration for Ontario, Frederick Declaration for Altantic Canada, a Whistler Declaration for BC, a Yellowknife Declaration for the North?

Brachina

Nikki's Lethbridge Declaration video for those having a problem with the video on the website.

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=mVBUnTFeV68

socialdemocrati...

I think that a new trans-Canada high speed railroad would be a great idea.

Reduce dependency on giant tankers going through the Panama Canal. Renew trade and commerce flowing through the Prairies. Create short-term infrastructure jobs. Gain a competitive advantage over our American counterparts (or get them in on it, and share the cost). Restore pride to regions that are hurting, and build a sense of shared opportunity between all regions of this country.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

It appears that the NDP is acting on Nikki's excellent Lethbridge idea. http://lethbridgedeclaration.ca/ I don't live on the Praire's, but I think its an exciting idea. I wish it had more pubistity so spread this web address far and wide. Also I'm happy for Nikki, between this and her women's conference it appears she's really taking a leadership role within the party. What kind of stuff/direction do you fellow dippers think the Lethbridge Declaration take? Also should other regions get a declaration too, like a Hamilton Declaration for Ontario, Frederick Declaration for Altantic Canada, a Whistler Declaration for BC, a Yellowknife Declaration for the North?

Whistler Declaration?  That is the elites playground on the coast.   Even the name declares that the people of the province are going to be ignored.  Not to be picky but WTF is Fredrick and I would prefer a Tuktoyaktuk Declaration.

6079_Smith_W

We're just sitting through news that the Sask Party's convention wants to lower the drinking age to 18 from 19; part of the reason is that they think they'd get far more votes on campuses.

THis is a breath of fresh air compared to that.

Unionist

The drinking age is 19? What's the voting age - 25?

Brachina

Dropping the drinking age to 18 is a great idea, but provincial juristiction.

As for Whistler I don't know that many BC smaller cities. Guess you can call it the Kamloops Declaration.

The Altantic one they could call the St. john's Declaration.

The High Speed Rail idea is good start.

6079_Smith_W

I don't have a problem with the proposal, just the Sask Party's motivation, and that they see no problem with declaring it openly.

And U, yes. Growing up in a place where it was 18, I find it odd, though not as odd as 21.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

As for Whistler I don't know that many BC smaller cities. Guess you can call it the Kamloops Declaration. The Altantic one they could call the St. john's Declaration.

Is that why you felt qualified to name something for us?

Kamloops would be a reasonable choice and is a city where the NDP is always competitive.

Are you sure you mean Saint John's and not Saint John? It will make some difference on how well it resonates with people in the Maritimes compared to Atlantic Canada.

Wink

Please take no offense I am just having a bit of geographical fun.

felixr

How about Prince George?

Brachina

Too royal :D

Seriously any thoughts on the Lethbridge declaration?

felixr

Brachina wrote:
Too royal :D Seriously any thoughts on the Lethbridge declaration?

I don't like it. It tries to pre-ordain the result before the process has even started (0:40-0:50 mark):

-cwb, food security, foreign ownership, gutting of natural resource and environmental policies, growth of inequality, affordability gap, aboriginal poverty

Why even bother consulting when you've made up your mind already?

Then it says, unlike the old prairies, thankfully the prairies are changing to the good prairies now with (0:55-1:05):

"But the prairies are changing, in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta our population is increasing, our diversity is growing, and the economy is shifting"

Great. So the people that lived there before stink and those that derive their incomes from the parts of the economy that you suspect don't represent Ashton's shift stink too. I feel great.

"the prairies need strong progressive leadership and an inclusive vision for a strong Canada" (minute: 1:06-1:11)

I know it sounds like platitudes, but what is she saying? That if you don't vote for the NDP you are a racist? Is that what it means that the NDP has an inclusive vision, because it seems like she is saying that the Conservatives do not have an inclusive vision and if the voters choose Conservative then that makes them?

The line that made me bristle the most was "it's time to go head-to-head with conservatives (minute 1:35-1:42)"

I know she probably means large C Conservatives here, but I couldn't help thinking small c conservatives when she said the line. Frankly, I don't want to go "head-to-head" with my neighbours, my friends, my colleagues, etc. I don't want to fight them, I want to persuade them. Perhaps it is the partisanship of this line that annoys me. Perhaps it is the out of touchness with the idea that there are not WAY more individuals that think they are conservatives than progressives in the West right now, because progressives are not addressing their interests and concerns. Or maybe these conservatives are being dismissed just like in all of the examples from the transcript that I have provided above.

 

Brachina

Are you for real?

Aristotleded24

Felixr, I think that video is aimed more so at party activists than average voters. The Prairies have been rock-solid Conservative for so long that people tend to take that for granted. I think what she's trying to do is basically shake up the thinking within the NDP and saying, "hey there is potential for victory here, let's try and tap into it," and to address those concerns. You state that more folks identify as conservatives than progressives because progressives are not addressing Prairie concerns? Can you give any examples?

felixr

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Felixr, I think that video is aimed more so at party activists than average voters.

That must be it, if so, I'm a little disappointing. I think if the NDP is going to have a breakthrough on the prairies it is going to talk a lot more than just the activists. Yes, people may be ready to give us a new look now that we have a shot at forming government but we need to engage with the public as well.

On the issues front, I think that is part of the problem: the thinking has gotten very stale. Two issues that I know are a big deal for people in Alberta, and have been for time immemorial, are fiscal responsibility (this is what spurred the PC-Wildrose split) and good-paying jobs. In Alberta, jobs are inevitably tied up in the resource sector, a large part of which is the oil sands. What Ashton she's as the "gutting of resource...policies" looks good to the Alberta voter if what's really being down is arbitrary barriers (i.e. not very founded environmental regulations) to job and wealth creation.

Fiscal responsibility is also a huge deal to the people of Saskatchewan. It used to be a Saskatchewan NDP trademark but in the last election Link threw that away (among many other unfortunate moves) and the party's support plummeted even further. Looking at recent NDP governments in Manitoba as well, while they haven't been as tough on fiscal responsibility as they could be, they have worked at charting a direction where economic growth takes the passenger seat only to social development (which is a good driver of economic growth in the first place).

Food security is the mega-buzzword of Western activists for the last few years. It doesn't resonate with me except where it becomes a euphemism for poverty issues. It certainly isn't something being talked about in the mainstream of society though, and not for lack of exposure.

The CWB, what to say, what to say. I am ambivalent to it, because while the CWB sounds like a good deal to farmers, it is less of a good deal to consumers. The Conservatives have made their move and the farmers did not rise up in the numbers needed to defeat them. In fact, rural farming areas reward the Conservatives with supermajorities. I'm not saying the NDP should change tack or give up the fight, but maybe the CWB is not as hot a political issue as Ashton and others would like it to be.

Aboriginal poverty? Absolutely! I want to see the party pick that one up and propose something novel.

Foreign ownership? Generally, I think if someone is offering to buy something of yours that's a good thing not a bad thing (heck make some money). For 99% of foreign acquisitions I don't get where the beef is at because whatever these foreign companies buy, still has to play by Canadian laws and rules to operate in this country. What's more, the government can nationalise things whenever they want, just like Danny Williams did with the mill that wasn't fulfiling its charter.

Gutting of environmental policies? To this I say, what environmental policies? All the environmental acts of Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are toothless, so whatever environmental laws that do exist operate under the guise of arcane laws like the Navigable Waters Protection Act that twisted so far out of joint by environmental lawyers that they don't even make any sense any more. How about instead of complaining about the "gutting," complain about actually "getting" some environmental policies, because the sh*t the Liberals wrote in the nineties is a f*cking joke.

 

Growth of inequality, affordability gap? Both very noble goals, but again, the NDP tends to be long on rhetoric and shorter on logistics. About the closest thing I've seen from NDP corners on a feasible action plan to do this is the B Institute report. It calls for major tax changes, mostly in the form of tax increases on current ratepayers. I would be surprised if tax paying voters rose up and demanded their taxes be increased, but there is often a way, maybe just not right to the B way. I'm still pissed off at B for attacking Mulcair during the leadership race, when it was clear Mulcair would win.

socialdemocrati...

Those are some sober thoughts, felixr.

Today I was reading some hard-right America websites, and they kept arguing that they just need a better salesman. I don't want to fall into that trap. They honestly believed that a Todd Akin figure was in trouble only because he mad clumsy arguments, not because of his fundamental view that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even if she was raped. I don't want the NDP to be the left wing version of that.

That being said, I would never sell out our core fundamentals. We ought to fight for stronger environmental protections, greater equality, and a peaceful foreign policy. But if those were all we needed to electrify the Prairie vote, the NDP wouldn't be suffering so badly out there. There aren't even signs of a bubbling breakthrough.

I don't know what a bubbling breakthrough would look like in the Prairies, to be honest. In Quebec, you could sort of see the outlines of opportunity: people voting for the Bloc even though they're not really separatists, many big fans of the provincial childcare program, federalists fed up with the Liberals, the sudden rise (and fall) of the ADQ... It all added up to an electorate that was looking for ANY alternative to the current parties, and had some potential sympathies with a social democratic philosophy.

I don't see anything like that in the West. The Conservative parties have huge approval ratings in Saskatchewan and Alberta. And the resource economy seems to be a big hit (at least in Alberta and Saskatchewan -- the two provinces with the lowest unemployment rate). When the system out there is so popular, there isn't room for an economic argument of "hey, what about other value-added industries?" There's barely room for an environmental argument.

There would have to be a real crisis with the Conservative party to persuade those voters to change course. Resource prices would have to fall suddenly, and cause some kind of economic collapse. And by the way, that's completely possible. That's the essence of the dutch disease, and it's the argument Mulcair has already been making.

Aristotleded24

felixr wrote:
That must be it, if so, I'm a little disappointing. I think if the NDP is going to have a breakthrough on the prairies it is going to talk a lot more than just the activists. Yes, people may be ready to give us a new look now that we have a shot at forming government but we need to engage with the public as well.

Yeah, but to me it's a strategy of getting the Prairie activists together to formulate a strategy about how to engage the public. That's how things start out. I really hope that the conference gives voices to people like Dan Meades and Shannon Phillips, one of whom has already demonstrated success at reaching out to the public.

felixr wrote:
On the issues front, I think that is part of the problem: the thinking has gotten very stale. Two issues that I know are a big deal for people in Alberta, and have been for time immemorial, are fiscal responsibility (this is what spurred the PC-Wildrose split) and good-paying jobs. In Alberta, jobs are inevitably tied up in the resource sector, a large part of which is the oil sands. What Ashton she's as the "gutting of resource...policies" looks good to the Alberta voter if what's really being down is arbitrary barriers (i.e. not very founded environmental regulations) to job and wealth creation.

Maybe jobs pay more in Alberta, but everything is more expensive, and I don't see being further ahead if I just have to pay more for  housing, energy, and car insurance, so there are drawbacks. Besides, even Peter Lougheed agrees with Mulcair on the essense of the Dutch Disease.

felixr wrote:
Fiscal responsibility is also a huge deal to the people of Saskatchewan. It used to be a Saskatchewan NDP trademark but in the last election Link threw that away (among many other unfortunate moves) and the party's support plummeted even further. Looking at recent NDP governments in Manitoba as well, while they haven't been as tough on fiscal responsibility as they could be, they have worked at charting a direction where economic growth takes the passenger seat only to social development (which is a good driver of economic growth in the first place).

This proves that if you repeat a lie often enough that people believe it, and one of these is the lie that the NDP is fiscally irresponsible. The truth is, when it comes to balancing budgets, the NDP has the best track record of doing so at 41%, and this includes Bob Rae's Ontario. There's no inherent conflict between spending on needed social programs for the people and keeping the books in order.

As for the current situation in Manitoba, yes the NDP government is running a deficit, but so is nearly every damn government in the industrialized world regardless of political stripe. That's because we are still trying to dig ourselves out of the mess that began in 2008. Cutting spending doesn't really work in an economic downturn anyways, because that often involves job losses and cuts to income supports for vulnerable people, both of whom then spend less, and the economy continues to slow down, and government revenue remains stagnant, and you still end up with deficits, etc.

By the way, the Saskatchewan NDP was in trouble because Link reminded voters why they threw out the NDP in the first place, and his image had been damaged beyond repair for a long time. The policy planks were an unsuccessful attempt by the NDP to distract the public from who their leader was. A more competent leader would not have done as badly with that platform.

felixr wrote:
Food security is the mega-buzzword of Western activists for the last few years. It doesn't resonate with me except where it becomes a euphemism for poverty issues. It certainly isn't something being talked about in the mainstream of society though, and not for lack of exposure.

It will become a much more pressing issue, as both the changing climate and the collapse of the agro-industrial complex takes a toll on the food supply and pushes grocery prices up. That's never a good thing, but especially so in a climate of low wages and insecure work.

felixr wrote:
The CWB, what to say, what to say. I am ambivalent to it, because while the CWB sounds like a good deal to farmers, it is less of a good deal to consumers. The Conservatives have made their move and the farmers did not rise up in the numbers needed to defeat them. In fact, rural farming areas reward the Conservatives with supermajorities. I'm not saying the NDP should change tack or give up the fight, but maybe the CWB is not as hot a political issue as Ashton and others would like it to be.

What the CWB does is protect grain farmers, and by extension rural communities, from the profiteering of big agricultural firms, and it's these big agricultural firms that are behind the drive to get rid of the CWB. The issue of consumer protection has more to do with the control that a few large grocery store chains have on the food supply than the CWB. As for farmer opinion, in 1997 there were Saskatchewan farmers who were arrested for trying to sell their grain abroad, which resulted in changes to the CWB. If there was low public support for the CWB, it would have been dismantled then. Also, during the elections, Liberal, Green, and NDP candidates openly declared support for the CWB, while Conservative candidates made vague noises about "listening to farmers." If public opinion was against the CWB, why would they not just come out in favour of dismantling it? Remember that the CWB board was elected by farmers themselves, and these elections consistently returned farmers in favour of retaining the CWB. To say nothing of Harper either ignoring or refusing to have democratic votes on the issue by farmers themselves.

And yes, it does frustrate me that agricultural communities voted Conservative even though anyone paying attention knew the CWB would be gone under Harper.

felixr wrote:
Foreign ownership? Generally, I think if someone is offering to buy something of yours that's a good thing not a bad thing (heck make some money). For 99% of foreign acquisitions I don't get where the beef is at because whatever these foreign companies buy, still has to play by Canadian laws and rules to operate in this country. What's more, the government can nationalise things whenever they want, just like Danny Williams did with the mill that wasn't fulfiling its charter.

Except when the foreign companies take over, they generally take their high-level jobs out of Canada, and the decisions about what to do are further removed from the communities that would be affected. Plus, as foreign firms become more dominant, we are pulled into a race to the bottom and there is pressure to lower our standards to compete with countries that don't have any. Witness the bitter strike at Vale-Inco in Sudbury a couple of years ago.

And yes, I wish the NDP would show some courage to publicly say the word "nationalize," not necessarily as a cure-all, but a tool we have for our benefit.

felixr wrote:
Growth of inequality, affordability gap? Both very noble goals, but again, the NDP tends to be long on rhetoric and shorter on logistics. About the closest thing I've seen from NDP corners on a feasible action plan to do this is the B Institute report. It calls for major tax changes, mostly in the form of tax increases on current ratepayers. I would be surprised if tax paying voters rose up and demanded their taxes be increased, but there is often a way, maybe just not right to the B way. I'm still pissed off at B for attacking Mulcair during the leadership race, when it was clear Mulcair would win.

On the issue of taxation, and again I wish the NDP would show more courage, there needs to be a restructuring of the tax structure so that the people at the top pay more. Yes, they won't like it, but they aren't voting NDP anyways (except for a select few who are willing to pay more to help out those at the bottom, but again, they don't need convincing) and they aren't that numerous. If you frame it correctly, you can win the public argument over taxes.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
I would never sell out our core fundamentals. We ought to fight for stronger environmental protections, greater equality, and a peaceful foreign policy. But if those were all we needed to electrify the Prairie vote, the NDP wouldn't be suffering so badly out there. There aren't even signs of a bubbling breakthrough.

A few changes are happening:

1) The federal redistrubution, if adopted, will cost the Conservatives seats in Regina and Saskatoon off the hop without any effort. It may even carve up Edmonton to allow for more NDP seats to be won.

2) The NDP in Saskatchewan is currently in bad shape from the last provincial election, but they look like they have an impressive slate running for their leadership, and should be able to build more public support in time for the next go around. As popular as Brad Wall is, his labour reforms are not going over well, and a competent opposition will be able to make things stick. Manitoba may be a different story, as by then the NDP will have been in power for a long time, and "NDP fatigue" could very well hamper the federal party's efforts.

Yes, Alberta looks like a Conservative bastion, but remember that when the far-right Wildrose looked like they were going to win, the PCs campaigned to the left of where they had been governing by campaigning on protecting services. Not only did Albertans back the PCs despite widespread PC fatigue, but they turned out to vote in larger numbers than usual. Alberta's been taken for granted as being PC for so long that nobody makes an effort. Maybe try talking to Albertans, and you'll learn that they have the many of the same hopes, dreams, and concerns as you do.

3) Demographics across the Prairies are changing, specifically the percentages of new Canadians and First Nations. And not only in the bigger cities, but in small cities like Brandon. These are demographics that do not naturally go Conservative, so there is room for growth among these populations.

As for what motivates Prairie voters, I would describe them as blue-collar Tories. These voters want their vital public services protected, they want to be safe in their own communities, they want their children to have a better life than they did (if they have children) and they want their tax dollars treated with respect. They swing back and forth between the NDP and the Conservatives, and it's not hard to imagine why these voters would support the NDP provincially and the Conservatives federally. Most importantly, these voters want to be respected. There is a pervasive sense that the federal government doesn't care about anybody west of Kenora, and only the Conservatives have spoken to that sentiment. We need to change that. Personally, I think the fact that the party is doing a "Lethbridge Declaration" is a positive sign, because it means that the NDP is paying attention to this part of the country instead of relying on Ontario and Quebec to take them over the top. Believe me, if the NDP achieved a federal government with support from Ontario and Quebec while still being shut out of Western Canada, the anger out here would be quite fierce. Fierce enough to allow an openly-separatist Reform II to flourish.

socialdemocrati...

Interesting thoughts, Artistotleded24. I agree that it's good to start with activists on the ground there. They're the ones in touch with the small nuances of what's going on, and who can speak the language of the prairies the same way we found a few NDP leaders who could speak the language of Quebec a few years ago.

The way the Alberta PCs repositioned themselves is both promising and troubling. It's great that Alberta didn't go off a right wing cliff. But when the PCs represent the left, we have a real problem. I have no clue if these people were really angry that they had to vote PC, and that they would have supported a more progressive alternative. But my impression is that they're happy to go along with the PCs (and the federal Conservatives) if the oil jobs don't disappear, and there are a few token mentions of protecting the environment and health care, even if conservative polcies don't really have teeth.

There's definitely a demographic shift going on. But these kinds of shifts are slow, and take a generation to come to fruition. A demographic shift might make us a bit more competitive in some of the urban centers, especially Edmonton. But we'll still be locked out of the rural areas of the prairies.

Which isn't terrible, I guess. Combined with redistricting, a few seats could float the way of the NDP. But when I hear the Lethbridge Declaration, I hope for something that could reach across the Prairies: urban, rural, black, white, native, new immigrants and people who've been there for seven generations.

It's going to take a huge turning point. Brad Wall picking a fight could do it. A sudden environmental catastrophe could do it. The consequences of the dutch disease -- volatility in resource prices killing the only jobs we focused on -- could do it. If that's the case, what we're really trying to organize is a preparation-meets-opportunity moment. Time will have to be a factor.

The last thing I'll say is that I believe most voters vote with values. I think it's one of the reasons the NDP has been successful, because there's no doubt that we value workers, equality, and the environment. (The same way Conservatives have a reputation for valuing good budgets. It almost doesn't matter when they screw up a budget because the impression of values is so strong, but I digress.) There's no reason why our values have to be presented as the values of big city academics. I know that environmentalists were able to break through in Montana when their ideas were presented by farmers and hunters. The policies feel different when they seem homegrown, instead of being imported from our east.

On that note, just having a Lethbridge Declaration is an important symbol. It certainly can't hurt.

Brachina

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2013/01/tuesday-morning-links...

Near the end Accidental Deliberations has some links on media attention given to the Lethbridge Declaration.

They're holding events to gain feed back out West, but what I interesting is thier also holding training sessions as well and Mulcair is meeting with the NDP leadership in the region, which says that the Declaration is just one part in a more comprohensive stradegy for the Praire's.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

We're just sitting through news that the Sask Party's convention wants to lower the drinking age to 18 from 19; part of the reason is that they think they'd get far more votes on campuses.

THis is a breath of fresh air compared to that.

The drinking age was originally 21 in Ontario and then lowered to 18 in the early 1970's.  

Then in the early 1980's it was moved back up to 19.   I think the idea was to get booze out of high school events because usually most kids start drinking a couple of years before they're of legal drinking age.   I'm speaking as someone who had his first drink in a bar at age 15.

Brachina

Any age limits over 18 for anything is wrong. If your old enough to die and kill for your country then your old enough to decide if you want a beer. Age limits of 19 and older are irrational and unscientific as full adulthood biologically speaking is achieved by 18.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Gee then what is that difference that happened to my children sometime between 20 and 25.  AT 18 they were far less mature than in their early 20's  Maybe that was only my kids it is anecdotal after all.  They were full grown physically but I would not say they were fully mature at 18.

According to your definition in the USA all the drinking laws should be changed to 17 with parental consent.

Brachina

Actually I don't believe the physical process of achieving full complete adulthood is finished until 18. If I'm wrong about that and the age in fact is 17 then then yes lower the age limit.

As for mental maturity that is both utterly subjective and evolves at different rates. A 16 years could have more maturity then a 50 year old, I've seen that.

As for being more mature at 25 then 20, they'll likely be more mature at a 100 then 95,,barring medical issues. Personal growth is a life long process that does not stop at Adulthood.

The only truely fair way is to use the universal apex of adulthood which is physical development in healthy individuals (there are medical conditions that can stop person from physically developing into an adult, but as this is a medical issue and not how the process is supposed run I've precluded it).

janfromthebruce

Some scientific data for background to this conversation: THE ADOLESCENT BRAIN -- WHY TEENAGERS THINK AND ACT DIFFERENTLY--

It now appears the brain continues to change into the early 20's with the frontal lobes, responsible for reasoning and problem solving, developing last.

AND

Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability

Also, appearances may be deceiving: “Just because they’re
physically mature, they may not appreciate the consequences or
weigh information the same way as adults do. So we may be mistaken
if we think that [although] somebody looks physically
mature, their brain may in fact not be mature.”

Essentially most teens and into their early twenties "lack insight" which requires fully attached frontal lobes.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

Actually I don't believe the physical process of achieving full complete adulthood is finished until 18. If I'm wrong about that and the age in fact is 17 then then yes lower the age limit.

I used that number because you tied it to military service and that is the age in the US.  In the US you can be a child soldier as long as your parents consent.

I think the idea of the frontal lobes makes a lot of since since it confirms my anecdotal evidence Wink

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Brachina wrote:
Any age limits over 18 for anything is wrong. If your old enough to die and kill for your country then your old enough to decide if you want a beer. Age limits of 19 and older are irrational and unscientific as full adulthood biologically speaking is achieved by 18.

Ditto. The hell with science, it doesn't help stop a bullet going into an 18 year old body. If you can die for your country, the least it can do is let you have a beer.

Ippurigakko

I wont drink any alcoholic beverage because it is not our indigenous culture that why White people label to Indigenous people are drunk as stereotype, alcoholism is a huge problem for native people.... Most native people were alcohol-intolerant and began to suffer high rates of alcoholism.... like suicide, abuse, etc etc, I really want alcohol beverage is not ALLOW in First Nations, Metis and Inuit communities....

Brachina

That would fuel a blackmartet in booze and the cry of anti native racism would soon follow.

Offering free treatment of say Netrexone injections or other treatments would be better for both natives and non natives.

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
It appears that the NDP is acting on Nikki's excellent Lethbridge idea.

Sadly, it appears that there has not been any follow-up on this idea, and it appears to have dried up. Which is a shame. It has allowed Harper to stay strong and continue to take Western Canada for granted.

Regardless of the outcome, this process needs to be revived immediately after the election.

Brachina

 Agreed.