Julienne Vipond--CNGPM Re: Tragopogon

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
233 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Nov 18, 2007

This is a video response to Tragopogon. The question was regarding my proposal to grant the territories full status as provinces. Tragopogon asked how I could justify giving the territories even greater representation since by population they do not even merit one seat in the House of Commons. My answer to this is that while every 107 200 Canadians is supposed to be represented by one seat in the House of Commons, there are also other clauses which grant the provinces a greater number of seats than they would be granted by population alone. For example, PEI with a population of 138 627 should be granted 1-2 seats, but instead they are granted four. This sort of scheme is similar for most of the provinces. So why then should the territories be limited to seats based on population? Why not grant them full status as provinces, and the increased representation that goes with this?

Thanks,
Julienne

  • likes, 1 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (JulienneVipond)

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

Video Responses

see all

All Comments (4)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more