The bigger issue that I was trying to get at with the second part of my original comment, is that the territories don't have the capacity to become provinces. You can't ask the territories to take on the responsibilities of provinces because they can't handle it yet. As provinces, the territories would need to handle their own taxation and services. Having grown up in Whitehorse, I can tell you that the Yukon's population alone would not be able to fund adequate education and health care.
Granting the territories full status as provinces is both symbolic and real. It is symbolic in that it seeks to correct consistent neglect of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, it is also a very real move, for it would indeed mean that the territories as provinces would have far more responsibilities. This obviously includes taxation for provincial services such as education and health care.
While on their own the territories would not be able to raise enough revenue to support these provincial services, neither can eight of the existing provinces. Instead the federal government provides equalization payments to these provinces. These equalization payments would then be extended to the three former territories, replacing Territorial Formula Financing. Obviously, financing is not a barrier to granting the territories full status. The only barrier is colonial inertia.
You would be creating super-have-not provinces. Do you really think the territories want this? Many municipalities in Canada have bigger populations than the territories, and the territories have huge areas of land to cover... when you start to consider the higher costs of living, and many socio-economic challenges of life north of 60... the territories can't be expected to take care of it on their own.
Thank you for your response, but I don't think you addressed the problem I see in your platform. You are right that like the territories, some provinces are also overrepresented in the House. I just don't think you can dismiss my point by saying that since it's already a problem, we be shouldn't be concerned about making it worse.
I didn't say that I think this 'over-representation' is a problem. It can only be defined as over-representation based on the current electoral system which is based on 107 200 people being represented by 1 seat in the House of Commons. Personally, I would not object to having the 107 200 requirement lowered, giving ALL people of Canada greater representation.
However, we must consider that the 107 200 requirement is not the only requirement which determines the numbers of seats in the House of Commons. What I was pointing out is that based on additional clauses, the other provinces are granted far greater representation than their population would determine.
If this is the case, why should only the territories be held back from being given the same degree of representation that the other provinces are granted? Should not ALL the regions of Canada be granted the same proportional degree of representation?
If you believe that Canada should strictly follow the 107 200 requirement, and thus that the territories should not be granted greater representation, I think you would have to argue for reducing the seats of the provinces, for to fail to do so creates asymmetrical representation which is a breach of human rights.
I think that ideally, the House of Commons should reflect the population of Canada. It is the representation by population body that ought to be countered by the regional representation of the Senate. Obviously our current set up doesn't accomplish this very well, but I think the bigger problem is with the Senate not being reflective of Canada's regional diversity, not the minor inconsistencies with pop. rep. in the house.
2/2
The bigger issue that I was trying to get at with the second part of my original comment, is that the territories don't have the capacity to become provinces. You can't ask the territories to take on the responsibilities of provinces because they can't handle it yet. As provinces, the territories would need to handle their own taxation and services. Having grown up in Whitehorse, I can tell you that the Yukon's population alone would not be able to fund adequate education and health care.
tragopogon 4 years ago
1/2
As to your second point:
Granting the territories full status as provinces is both symbolic and real. It is symbolic in that it seeks to correct consistent neglect of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, it is also a very real move, for it would indeed mean that the territories as provinces would have far more responsibilities. This obviously includes taxation for provincial services such as education and health care.
JulienneVipond 4 years ago
2/2
While on their own the territories would not be able to raise enough revenue to support these provincial services, neither can eight of the existing provinces. Instead the federal government provides equalization payments to these provinces. These equalization payments would then be extended to the three former territories, replacing Territorial Formula Financing. Obviously, financing is not a barrier to granting the territories full status. The only barrier is colonial inertia.
JulienneVipond 4 years ago
You would be creating super-have-not provinces. Do you really think the territories want this? Many municipalities in Canada have bigger populations than the territories, and the territories have huge areas of land to cover... when you start to consider the higher costs of living, and many socio-economic challenges of life north of 60... the territories can't be expected to take care of it on their own.
tragopogon 4 years ago
1/2
Thank you for your response, but I don't think you addressed the problem I see in your platform. You are right that like the territories, some provinces are also overrepresented in the House. I just don't think you can dismiss my point by saying that since it's already a problem, we be shouldn't be concerned about making it worse.
tragopogon 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1/4
As to your first point:
I didn't say that I think this 'over-representation' is a problem. It can only be defined as over-representation based on the current electoral system which is based on 107 200 people being represented by 1 seat in the House of Commons. Personally, I would not object to having the 107 200 requirement lowered, giving ALL people of Canada greater representation.
JulienneVipond 4 years ago
2/4
However, we must consider that the 107 200 requirement is not the only requirement which determines the numbers of seats in the House of Commons. What I was pointing out is that based on additional clauses, the other provinces are granted far greater representation than their population would determine.
JulienneVipond 4 years ago
3/4
If this is the case, why should only the territories be held back from being given the same degree of representation that the other provinces are granted? Should not ALL the regions of Canada be granted the same proportional degree of representation?
JulienneVipond 4 years ago
4/4
If you believe that Canada should strictly follow the 107 200 requirement, and thus that the territories should not be granted greater representation, I think you would have to argue for reducing the seats of the provinces, for to fail to do so creates asymmetrical representation which is a breach of human rights.
JulienneVipond 4 years ago
I think that ideally, the House of Commons should reflect the population of Canada. It is the representation by population body that ought to be countered by the regional representation of the Senate. Obviously our current set up doesn't accomplish this very well, but I think the bigger problem is with the Senate not being reflective of Canada's regional diversity, not the minor inconsistencies with pop. rep. in the house.
tragopogon 4 years ago